Oral Answers to Questions

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Democratic Republic of the Congo

Tom Clarke: If she will make a statement on the peace process and humanitarian efforts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Clare Short: The Democratic Republic of the Congo is a highly indebted poor country. Levels of poverty are terrible, and the humanitarian situation in the east is particularly serious. The Congo needs peace and a legitimate Government, which could lead to debt relief and development.
	The United Kingdom has strongly supported the Lusaka peace accords, and applauds the recent engagement of South Africa in helping to drive forward the peace process. Angola, Uganda, Rwanda and Zimbabwe have withdrawn their troops from the Congo. Progress is now being held up by delays in the forming of a transitional Government incorporating all factions. There is a danger that fighting in the east will escalate as negative forces based in Congo seek to invade and destabilise Rwanda and Burundi. The United Kingdom is intensely engaged in trying to drive the peace process forward. We have provided #5 million of humanitarian aid so far this year, and will do more.

Tom Clarke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who participated in the recent Inter-Parliamentary Union visit to Rwanda returned feeling gravely concerned about the escalation of genocide in an already troubled region? Does she agree that if the Kinshasa Government fail to speed the process, at a time when urgency is absolutely necessary, the situation will deteriorate further and quite needlessly?

Clare Short: I agree. The region has been terribly troubled. The history of Burundi and Rwanda, in which there have been outbreaks of genocide or killing since independence—if it can be called that—is really terrible, and the international community has neglected the region.
	As I said in my answer, there is worry about a vacuum following the withdrawal of Rwanda. It is feared that that will lead to genocidal forces seeking to invade Rwanda and Burundi, and an escalation in the killing. My hon. Friend is right: we need the Kinshasa Government to agree with the United Nations, form a transitional Government and secure order throughout the country with a strengthened UN presence. The hold-up is in Kinshasa, which must be pressed to do more.

Gary Streeter: I thank the Secretary of State for all that she is doing in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Does she agree that this is a classic example of a country, rich in natural resources, that could create prosperity for its own citizens but, because of bad governance and conflict, has done the opposite? I know that she will do this anyway, but may I encourage her to maintain her close interest in the country? Will she also assure us that she will make good governance a high priority for her Department? In establishing good governance in so many emerging nations, are we not taking the most important step towards giving them prosperity?

Clare Short: That is true, especially in the case of Africa. Some of the countries with the richest natural resources are the most blighted. Those resources have been misused in the colonial era and since by people who wanted the diamonds and the minerals and did not care about the conditions of the people. The Congo has been misgoverned for those reasons since King Leopold of the Belgians.
	I also agree that good governance is essential, but the hon. Gentleman will remember our Front-Bench exchanges. If we are to build up powerful and effective Government institutions, we need not to fund projects outside Government but to get inside Government systems. What we need are courts that work, finance ministries, and revenue authorities that are transparent, and we have shifted our focus in that direction. Once we have peace in the Congo, it will be an enormous job to build up Government institutions that are now completely lacking.

Oona King: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the first recommendation of the all-party group's report, which will be published tomorrow? It asks other countries in the region, and those beyond it, to recognise the serious security concerns of Rwanda and the people of the DRC.
	Will my right hon. Friend consider helping the Government of the DRC—the Kinshasa Government—to set up a civilian police force to give some protection to people in the eastern part of the Congo, where 2.5 million people have died since 1998 as a direct and indirect result of the conflict?

Clare Short: I look forward to reading the all-party group's report, and I agree with my hon. Friend. The Congo is as big as western Europe and full of rich natural resources, but it has no Government institutions and no order. All sorts of militias are being armed by different factions, and there is terrible suffering for the people, especially in the east.
	I have had talks with President Kabila of the Congo to suggest that the UK and France might work with him and the new transitional Government to help establish a proper army. I think that the Kinshasa Government have used some of the militias because they did not have an army that functioned. Then we need to get on with establishing a police force.
	I agree with my hon. Friend's diagnosis, but establishing a transitional Government and strengthening the UN are the first two steps we must take. We must then create a proper national army.

Afghanistan

Hugo Swire: If she will make a statement on the progress with restructuring Afghanistan.

Clare Short: Much has been achieved in Afghanistan over the last 10 months. There is peace and security in Kabul, a legitimate transitional Government and a new national currency. Nearly 2 million refugees have returned home, and 3 million children are in school. The situation, however, remains very fragile. Afghanistan is a desperately poor country. The south is facing its fifth year of drought, and more than 4 million people are still dependent on food aid. The situation outside Kabul remains insecure. Warlords control large militias, and large parts of the economy depend on narcotics.
	Further progress requires the establishment of security outside Kabul, and an increase in the Government's capacity to deliver services across the country. The UK will remain engaged to support continuing progress and development.

Hugo Swire: Given the failure to combat the continuing oppression and intimidation against poor farmers by regional warlords operating outside the control of the Afghan interim Government and the resulting eighteenfold increase in opium production since the removal of the Taliban, can the Secretary of State reassure the House that combating opium production in Afghanistan remains a priority of this Government? If it does, when can we expect to see the rhetoric matched by resources?

Clare Short: I must say that I find it very unappetising that the hon. Gentleman is trying to play games with the fate of a country such as Afghanistan that is trying to—[Interruption.] No. I really disrespect the hon. Gentleman's tone and his question. The situation in Afghanistan is very serious for its people and the future stability of the region. Security in Kabul is very important. We are about to move to agreement on the formation of a national army. That will mean the warlords having to dismantle their militias in favour of DDR—disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration. There was a massive cut in drugs production because of an eradication programme led by the United Kingdom in the first year after the fall of the Taliban, so the hon. Gentleman is also factually wrong—[Interruption.] I do not know why he is becoming hysterical. I have just come back from Afghanistan and I think that I know rather more about it than he does. As we saw in Colombia, a country cannot be prevented from producing drugs if there is no order, no justice or national security. Establishing that is the next stage and that is what we will be doing.

Phyllis Starkey: May I tell my hon. Friends that I was in Iran last week with a group of parliamentarians and met some of the 2.2 million Afghan refugees, some of whom have been in that country for more than a decade? The very strong message that they gave us was that they need more reassurance that if they return to Afghanistan they will be able to enjoy a secure environment. May I urge my right hon. Friend to press her colleagues in the international community to deliver the funding and the help that is needed to establish that security as soon as possible and to maintain that support over a long period so that refugees can return and rebuild their lives?

Clare Short: As I said earlier, 2 million refugees have returned from Pakistan, but there are more than 2 million in Iran and fewer have returned from Iran. I completely agree that, having secured the capital, which is a great achievement—Kabul is bustling with business; there are even traffic jams and little girls going to school—the same security is now needed outside Kabul. I think that we are on the brink of agreement, led by President Karzai, with the US, the UK and Japan involved, with the warlords on a process of forming a national army and disarming the militias. That will be a big process, but it is crucial to security and includes the establishment of regional security teams in the big cities outside Kabul. We will soon move forward to extending security outside Kabul and that is key to economic development. We are about to move to the second phase, which is urgently needed.

James Arbuthnot: Does the right hon. Lady agree that one way in which the drugs trade in Pakistan was reduced was by the building of roads to remote areas so that otherwise marginal crops became more valuable and could displace the drugs trade? What progress is being made towards building roads to the remote areas of Afghanistan?

Clare Short: I do not think that building roads will by itself reduce the drugs trade; indeed, it could assist it. What is needed is security and—I agree with the implication of the right hon. Gentleman's question—alternative legitimate livelihoods so that people can grow a crop, get it to market and have a legitimate life that draws them away from what is often the only crop they can grow—poppies funded by warlords. Afghanistan needs security and then more roads. There are commitments to more main roads across Afghanistan. I agree with his diagnosis and I am happy to say that we are about to move to that stage.

Geraint Davies: A kilo of opium costs $30 in Afghanistan, $600 in Tehran and $4,000 on the streets of Britain. The Iranian authorities have deployed 42,000 soldiers and police to fight traffickers. Thousands have been killed by an army of people who often have superior equipment, such as ground-to-air missiles and night-sighted rifles. When will the British Government give some front-line support to the fight against traffickers as well as encouraging alternative agricultural production in Afghanistan?

Clare Short: Given my hon. Friend's knowledge of prices, I am surprised that he does not know that we have been heavily engaged in supporting the building of intelligence units. Groups in Afghanistan have the capacity to destroy laboratories and stocks, but that will not work without creating a secure country. Afghanistan became a narcotics-growing paradise because it is a completely failed state without any justice. It is run by corruption—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I urge hon. Members to give the Secretary of State the opportunity to reply to the House. Such noise is bad manners.

Clare Short: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	My hon. Friend is right to say that there must be interdiction, but justice, security and the chance of a decent alternative life are also necessary, and we are working on all those things.

Caroline Spelman: On Monday, the Secretary of State for Defence said that it was too early to say what provisions would be made for security in Afghanistan after the expiry of United Nations authorisation for international peacekeeping on 20 December. However, the Secretary of State for International Development has just said that we will remain so engaged. Does that commitment bind her right hon. Friend, and when will she make a statement to the House?

Clare Short: I am afraid that the hon. Lady is muddling two things. The international security assistance force, which is securing Kabul, is currently led by the Turks. International negotiations are taking place about who will lead the next phase of the force. The second issue that is being discussed is bringing security to the cities outside Kabul. It is not suggested that that will be done by ISAF, but agreement is imminent. The United States will take the lead in most places, and the United Kingdom will engage. However, that issue is not connected with the future of ISAF.

Sanitation

David Chaytor: What plans she has to contribute to the achievement of the 2015 target for access to sanitation.

Sally Keeble: My Department worked very hard to get international agreement to the sanitation target, and we are now working to achieve the target through partner countries' strategies for poverty reduction. More than half the world's population have no access to sanitation—a situation that contributes directly to diseases that kill more than 2 million children every year. My Department's bilateral spending on sanitation, hygiene promotion and clean water has risen from #84.3 million in 1999–2000 to #87.2 million this year.

David Chaytor: Does my hon. Friend agree that action on sanitation has to be seen in the context of the other millennium targets on poverty reduction, water and energy? Following the sustainable development summit in Johannesburg in September, is she more optimistic that these targets will be achieved, or less optimistic?

Sally Keeble: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that those targets fit together as a package, and we are achieving more success with some of them than with others. The targets relating to child health and maternal health are probably the most difficult to meet, and sub-Saharan Africa presents more difficulties than other parts of the world. However, we are very confident, and we are working carefully towards achieving the target on sanitation and access to clean water.

Sydney Chapman: [Interruption.] In welcoming the commitment to provide proper sanitation for 800 million of the world's poorest people, will the Minister admit that, unfortunately, that was one of relatively few specific commitments agreed to at the Johannesburg world summit on sustainable development? Will she have a word with her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development to ask the Leader of the House to do all that he can to provide at the earliest opportunity in the new Session a debate on that summit, which was one of the most important ever?

Sally Keeble: I am not sure what the reason was for the congratulations offered to the hon. Gentleman at the beginning of his question. As he is an engineer, he will know a great deal about the provision of water—[Interruption.] Okay, he is a building engineer.

Michael Fabricant: I am an engineer.

Sally Keeble: I am delighted to hear that. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) knows a great deal about the provision of water and sanitation. Our assessment of the world summit on sustainable development was that it was a great success. The commitment to which he refers was a key one, and it will contribute to improving the health of, and saving the lives of, 2 million children a year—a very substantial achievement. On his other comments, my right hon. Friend has doubtless heard them and will take note of them.

Julia Drown: Does my hon. Friend accept that debt relief is one of the most effective ways of poor countries reaching the millennium development goals for sanitation? Is she urging her counterparts in other countries and, most importantly, the multinational institutions to match at least the Government's record on debt relief? In particular, does not she think that a list of shame of those countries that are not playing their part to ensure that the world's poorest counties reach the millennium development goals in sanitation and other areas should be produced?

Sally Keeble: I certainly agree that the Government have led the world in the initiative on debt relief and that it is important that other countries fulfil their commitments, too, but, in addition to the spending on sanitation and water infrastructure, it is also important that we have proper management, regulation and educational programmes so that we can achieve the millennium development goal that has been set. My Department has also led the world in the financial commitments and in working with partner Governments to ensure that we achieve that goal.

Robert Key: We strongly support the Secretary of State's commitment to reducing by half the number of people in the world without sanitation, but it is most disappointing to hear that there will be only a couple of million pounds extra in the aid budget. Can we really see no more commitment than that? After all, the Johannesburg summit cost #33 million, but all we get is #2 million.

Sally Keeble: The amount of money that I mentioned was only for the bilateral programme. I did not include, because it cannot completely set out, the amount of money that we spend through the country programme, to which I also referred, and the substantial amount of money that goes through the multilateral programme. We are leading the way in terms of the amount of money and the technical assistance that we provide, as well as the work that we are doing to ensure that not only is the infrastructure provided, but the management, regulation and education that goes with it. We are making a major contribution towards saving 2 million children a year.

Famine (Southern Africa)

Iain Luke: If she will make a statement on the food crisis in southern Africa.

Clare Short: In southern Africa, the number in need of food and other urgent humanitarian assistance is growing and will reach 14 million by March next year. The United Nations appeal is only 40 per cent. funded. The United Kingdom is the second largest donor after the United States. I am working to encourage my colleagues in other countries to increase their commitment. This is a very complex crisis. The drought is badly exacerbated by weaknesses in governance and economic management in Zambia and Malawi and by gross misgovernment in Zimbabwe. Levels of HIV/AIDS infection have weakened populations now facing serious malnourishment. The international community has not yet responded adequately to the crisis, and it is likely to escalate badly. I fear that we will see a terrible catastrophe.

Iain Luke: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I, like her, have been involved in discussions with non-governmental organisations and have taken part in debates on the unfolding human tragedy in southern Africa. I am well aware of the role played by the political leaders of countries such as Zimbabwe and Malawi in adding to the enormity of the famine being faced there. Does she agree, however, that the international community should not use the Government of Mugabe or Muluzi as an excuse to walk away from the peoples of Zimbabwe, Malawi and the southern Africa region?

Clare Short: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend, and the situation is very worrying. For such a serious crisis, to have only 40 per cent. funding for the UN appeal is very unusual. My guess is that that is because of the reputation of President Mugabe, but the people of Zimbabwe are the victims of President Mugabe, and the international community must not turn its back. One in three Zimbabweans are affected by HIV/AIDS. If those people do not get food and emergency health supplies, there will be catastrophic human suffering. The international community must not turn its back. Unappetising as President Mugabe is, the people deserve our support.

Jenny Tonge: The Secretary of State accepts that a major factor in the impending famine in southern Africa is Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Food aid for his people is being diverted to supporters of ZANU-PF. Given that fact, and reports of trouble in Matabeleland, what is the right hon. Lady's view of the US proposals, recently reported in the Washington Times, to deliver food directly to the people of Zimbabwe and, if necessary, to effect regime change in that country?

Clare Short: There is no doubt that the situation is very difficult. The Government of Zimbabwe are attempting to control which NGOs can work, and their diversion of some food for political reasons makes the problem more complex. The Government, the UN and the whole international community are standing together to resist that. However, we must stay engaged, or vast numbers of people will lose their lives.
	I saw Andrew Natsios, the head of USAID, fairly recently, but I am not aware of any plan to provide food aid in a way that will bring down the Mugabe regime. Keeping people fed and giving them health care is a complex enough problem, and we must focus on that. My hunch is that the disaster will bring down the Mugabe regime, after which there will be an enormous job of reconstruction to do.

Caroline Spelman: Does the Secretary of State accept that we also must bear some responsibility for the famine in southern Africa, as our system of subsidised agriculture distorts world markets and prevents African farmers from securing a sustainable livelihood? I remind the Secretary of State that yesterday she said that failure to reform the European common agricultural policy would mean the end of the Doha agreement. Is not that meaningless in light of the Prime Minister's rebuff at the European summit last week?

Clare Short: The hon. Lady is trying, but I am sorry to say that she is getting things slightly wrong. What happened at the European summit was that France had agreed that there should be no increased spending on the CAP when the EU is enlarged. That is good, as far as it goes. Keeping the CAP going and spending more and more would be a disaster. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister caused some irritation, we are told, because he stood up at the summit and insisted that the EU adhere to the commitments made at Doha. That requires progress on the mid-term review of the CAP.

Bill Olner: May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that she perhaps ought to revisit the question of food aid in Zimbabwe? There is evidence that food is being denied to people who are not members of ZANU-PF. If that is happening, it is a form of genocide. We will be judged very harshly if we sit back and do nothing and do not question the people in control in Zimbabwe.

Clare Short: I assure my hon. Friend that we are not sitting back and doing nothing. As I have said, the UK is the second-biggest donor to the emergency fund, and our emergency team has some of the best experts in the world working in the region. We are doing everything that we can to work around a bad Government, to keep people fed and to prevent the abuse of food aid.
	By and large, we are succeeding. The regime is attempting to misuse food aid, but we must keep working so that the regime will not prevent those who did not vote for it from receiving any assistance at all. We cannot allow that to happen.

Ethiopia

Laurence Robertson: If the Secretary of State for International Development will make a statement on the development aid that she is providing to Ethiopia.

Clare Short: Ethiopia has a population of 67 million people and is one of the poorest countries in the world, with gross domestic product at only $100 per head. We are now building up a development partnership with Ethiopia, which has been delayed by the war with Eritrea. We intend to support Ethiopia's poverty reduction strategy, which provides a strong basis for partnership and dialogue. The Ethiopian Government are showing a strong commitment to poverty reduction, and we plan to expand our programme of assistance significantly over the next few years.
	However, Ethiopia has a history of highly centralised Government, human rights abuse and continued reliance on food aid. The Government are committed to reform and democratisation, but the reform effort will be difficult and will require sustained support.

Laurence Robertson: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that response. However, she will be aware that the war with Eritrea has been over for some while now and the Government in Ethiopia are showing a commitment to democracy and reform. Ethiopia is anxious to know exactly how the Government will help with the poverty reduction strategy and when the Department for International Development expects to implement the country plan. I am to visit Ethiopia in December and I know that its Government are very anxious to learn in detail how we may be able to help them.

Clare Short: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the war has been over for such a long time. We had plans to expand our programme in Ethiopia that were delayed by the war, which we also tried to avoid. Nearly 100,000 young men lost their lives and the economies of both countries were damaged in a war over a barren piece of land. That was a tragedy for the people of both countries. We are in detailed discussion with the Ethiopia Government and have advanced plans. They will be published very shortly, and I will make sure that a copy is sent to the hon. Gentleman.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mark Tami: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 6 November.

Tony Blair: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Mark Tami: Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm the need for a United Nations resolution to secure the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq? What progress has been made to this end and, if progress has been made, as press reports indicate, when can we expect their return?

Tony Blair: I understand that at 3.30 today a United Nations resolution will be tabled in the Security Council. I spoke to President Bush about this a few moments ago. I pay tribute to the Foreign Secretary and the United Nations team who have worked so hard to secure this resolution. I hope very much that it is passed and has support. It will be a tough new inspection regime; it will be free from the problems of the past and it will make it very clear that there must be complete and total disarmament in Iraq of weapons of mass destruction—chemical, biological and nuclear—and that if not, action will follow. However, it is not conflict that is inevitable, but the disarmament of those weapons of mass destruction. The best and surest way to avoid conflict is for Iraq to comply with the will of the United Nations, to let the inspectors back in and to have the disarmament process begin.

Iain Duncan Smith: I join the Prime Minister in welcoming any such resolution that will deliver peace in that region and also the full disarmament of Iraq.
	Will the Prime Minister now rule out legislation in this Parliament for top-up fees—yes or no?

Tony Blair: I have made it clear that we shall abide by our manifesto commitment.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister did not answer the question. I specifically asked him if he would rule out legislating in this Parliament for top-up fees. Will he, yes or no?

Tony Blair: I have just told the right hon. Gentleman that we will abide completely by the manifesto commitment that we gave. As for the proposals that the Government come up with, I am afraid that he will have to await the outcome of the review.

Iain Duncan Smith: Before the last election, the Prime Minister said:
	XWe will not introduce 'top-up' fees".
	The Prime Minister's answer today indicates clearly to students up and down the country that, because he will not rule out legislation in this Parliament, he will introduce top-up fees costing them thousands of pounds. How can any family believe a word that he ever says?

Tony Blair: They can believe it precisely because the language that we used in the manifesto is language that I am happy to repeat now. Before the right hon. Gentleman accuses us of any particular course of action, I suggest that he awaits the outcome of the review, when he may find that some of his strictures are unjustified.

Graham Allen: The Prime Minister and other party leaders in this place will represent us and the nation on Remembrance day on Sunday. Will my right hon. Friend take a few minutes before Sunday to review the handful of cases that Members on both sides of the House have on war veterans, most of whom are now in their 80s—some from the Enigma project, the Arctic convoys, Suez and other campaigns. They are still denied the medals and the recognition that they morally deserve because the Ministry of Defence has a mean-minded, pettifogging interpretation of the rules and regulations, some of which are half a century old. Will my right hon. Friend, in the spirit of remembrance, use his power to cleave through that bureaucracy and give those elderly men and women the recognition they deserve, while they are still with us?

Tony Blair: First, I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to all those who made such sacrifices during both world wars so that this nation could remain a free and democratic country. He will know that the policy on that has been the policy of successive Governments over a long period. He will know too that we have done a great deal as a Government to improve the position of veterans and their dependants. Of course, we will keep those issues under review. I have heard what my hon. Friend has said—I am sure that the Ministry of Defence has too—but must come back to him later as I cannot give him the assurance that he wants today.

Charles Kennedy: Given the proper priority, which the Government continue to claim to give, to the protection of vulnerable people in care in our society, will the Prime Minister explain why 300,000 people providing that care have had their Criminal Records Bureau background checks abandoned indefinitely?

Tony Blair: We are trying to focus on those who may have implications for the most vulnerable in our society. It is important to realise that the Criminal Records Bureau is handling far more cases than ever before, and we should concentrate on people in the categories where there may be the most risk. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would agree with that.

Charles Kennedy: Surely the thousands of families who have vulnerable relatives in precisely that position of care deserve better reassurance from the Prime Minister? Can he therefore give us a commitment or a time scale? When will those checks be resumed and, most importantly, when will they be completed?

Tony Blair: We will do the necessary checks as soon as possible, but we have withdrawn certain categories because we believe that it is important to concentrate on those categories of people where there may be the greatest risk. Incidentally, may I tell the Liberal Democrats that I have no doubt that if we did not take a more flexible and sensible attitude, the right hon. Gentleman would be up on his feet accusing us of unnecessary bureaucracy.

Vera Baird: After the trial of David Shayler, which ended yesterday at the Old Bailey, will my right hon. Friend consider whether a public interest defence ought to be available to somebody who discloses unlawful conduct by the security services? I am making no comment about Shayler's case, but would not a carefully drafted public interest defence offer a sensible extra means of control over the intelligence community and, at the same time, give protection to people of conscience by allowing a jury to assess whether on the whole the public has been benefited or harmed by disclosure?

Tony Blair: With respect to my hon. and learned Friend, I am afraid that I do not agree. It is right that people who work for our security services undertake certain obligations of confidentiality. There is really no way in which we can protect our country otherwise. In these troubled times, it must be clear to people—I will not comment on the individual case—that if they work for the British security services they must abide by their conditions of employment and confidentiality. If they do not, I am afraid they will face the full force of the law.

John Taylor: The Prime Minister has suspended Stormont. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland says that next May's elections will take place—to what?

Tony Blair: The elections are for the Assembly, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I very much hope, however, that we can get the process up and running again. The Executive has been suspended because, I am afraid, we do not have the proper consent to run it at the moment. I very much hope, however, that we can get to a position in which the peace process is up and running again, as frankly that is the only way forward for people in Northern Ireland.

David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there are legitimate questions to be asked about the case that collapsed last Friday? Why was it started in the first place? Were the Law Officers consulted about the prosecution, and why, apparently, were public interest immunity certificates applied for to the judge? Was it considered that the evidence of the person concerned would be harmful to the state? There should be a statement. There seems to be a lot of mystery about the matter and it should be cleared up.

Tony Blair: I think that I am right in saying that public interest immunity certificates did not arise in this case, but I do not really have anything to add to what I said on Monday. Obviously, as I said then, the Crown Prosecution Service will want to learn the lessons of the case that has collapsed in those circumstances, but I do not see any reason for changing our constitutional conventions or precedents.

Richard Younger-Ross: Does the Prime Minister recall that on 16 July he was presented with a petition, highlighting the fact that Devon schoolchildren are worth #195 a year less of standard spending assessment than the national average? On receiving that petition the Prime Minister told head teacher Helen Nicholls:
	XI will come back to you as soon as I possibly can with a detailed response."
	Can the Prime Minister say when she will receive that response and will he now guarantee that the funding gap between Devon schoolchildren and those in the rest of the country will be closed?

Tony Blair: We will announce the outcome of the review of local government funding in early December, as the hon. Gentleman knows. That is when the response will be. When I met people from his constituency and from the county of Devon, they made extremely reasonable points, but I pointed out that reforming the system of local government finance was difficult. I understand their concerns, but I know that he will agree that Devon's education standard spending assessment has increased by nearly #60 million during the past few years. That is an average increase of almost 6 per cent. a year. I understand the issue about the gap, but it is worth pointing out that everybody in every part of the country has benefited from the record investment in education.

Ann McKechin: Does the Prime Minister agree with me and the many constituents who have contacted me this month that it is time that the Government introduced even tougher regulations on the sale of fireworks and, in particular, that they permit the licensing of shops that sell them, in order to control the dangerous and irresponsible behaviour that blights so many in our communities and causes so much distress?

Tony Blair: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have similar concerns. My hon. Friend will know that, earlier this month, a number of measures were announced by the Department of Trade and Industry to cut the number of firework injuries. They included such things as a crackdown on illegal markets in fireworks and the use of fixed penalty notices, which are being piloted at present and, hopefully, will be rolled out across the country. We have also launched a national safety campaign.
	We keep the rest of the law under close review. Obviously, we need to balance people's desire for safety and for dealing with the antisocial behaviour aspects with the need not to be overly bureaucratic or regulatory. We are looking at the matter and we keep it under constant review, but I understand my hon. Friend's concern.

Gary Streeter: Is the Prime Minister aware that in Plymouth and in various parts of the country waiting times for a heroin addict voluntarily to access detox treatment can be well over six months? Given police estimates that 80 per cent. of all acquisitive crime is drug-related and bearing in mind the misery and concern for the addict, for families and for victims, will the Prime Minister take another urgent look at this matter and, if necessary, redirect resources so that any person who takes the brave decision to kick the habit has immediate access to treatment?

Tony Blair: The point that the hon. Gentleman raises is right. We are doing two things about it. First, we have established the national treatment agency to try to ensure that what is available in certain parts of the country is available in all parts. Secondly, we are putting hundreds of millions of pounds extra—that is being rolled out over the next few years—into treatment for drug addicts. The hon. Gentleman is right: it is essential. Although we may be able to do this only in the highest crime areas to begin with, I want to reach a situation where people are tested for drugs when arrested; if they are tested and found positive, they should be given the opportunity to have treatment quickly; but if they refuse that treatment, it should be taken into account when considering their bail or their prison sentence, for example, if they are convicted. I entirely agree that the issue is urgent, but we are working on it.

Chris Ruane: Has the Prime Minister had the chance to read my speech in a recent Adjournment debate on antisocial behaviour? What measures does he intend to take to ensure that the polices that we are introducing to tackle antisocial behaviour—such as antisocial behaviour orders, antisocial behaviour contracts, parenting orders, stricter tenancy agreements and on-the-spot fines—are being implemented on the ground by crime and disorder partnerships in the UK?

Tony Blair: I have not read the speech—[Interruption]. I have not read the speech yet. From what my hon. Friend says—if that was a summary of it—I entirely agree with him. There will be a series of measures on antisocial behaviour. Antisocial behaviour orders have been successful where introduced, but they have been too difficult to introduce. Therefore, we are looking at a series of reforms to make them easier to get, to implement and to enforce.

Iain Duncan Smith: Will the Prime Minister abide by the result of the referendum in Gibraltar tomorrow?

Tony Blair: More than that, we have made it absolutely clear that there can be no change in the constitutional position of the people of Gibraltar without their consent. At the moment, there are no proposals on the table. We know what the referendum result will be—[Interruption.] We know because it is very clear. In the end, people in Gibraltar should realise that there will be and can be no change—it is not merely a question of proposals that we come up with now—without their express consent.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister said in this House that he would
	Xnever consent to any arrangement that goes against the freely expressed wishes of the people of Gibraltar." [Official Report, 16 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 388.]
	Tomorrow, they are going freely to express their wishes. Why will not the Prime Minister stand by the result?

Tony Blair: I have just made that clear, and I entirely concur with the statement that he quoted earlier. It is for that reason that I say again that there can be no change to the constitutional position of the people of Gibraltar without their consent. I said what I did about the referendum because there are no proposals on the table. However, let me make it clear to him that the process that we began of discussion with Spain and with people in Gibraltar—a process that began under the last Conservative Government; that is why it is the sheerest hypocrisy for the Conservatives to oppose it now—is right because it is in the interests of people in Britain, in Spain and in Gibraltar. But as I repeated a moment or two ago, it is their free expression of will that has to count.

Iain Duncan Smith: The people of Gibraltar do not want the Prime Minister's grubby deal. I remind him that the international observers at tomorrow's referendum are led by his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who said that this House should
	Xnot accept the sell-out of Gibraltar by a Labour Government." [Official Report, 12 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 1174.]
	Should not the Prime Minister now bury this shameful deal, respect the referendum and stand up for the people of Gibraltar?

Tony Blair: First, if I were the right hon. Gentleman I would not go against grubby deals too much. He may have need of a few of them, I think. Secondly, this is not a grubby deal. We have not actually tabled proposals. However, we have continued—in my view, absolutely rightly—the process that began under the last Conservative Government. We continued it because I happen to believe that it is in the interests of the people of Spain, of Britain and of Gibraltar. Having said that, the one thing that is abundantly clear—I have said it throughout and I repeat it now—is that there can be no change in the constitutional position of the people of Gibraltar without their express consent. I should have thought that that was clear enough, even for the right hon. Gentleman.

Caroline Flint: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the BBC XGreat Britons" poll, and to the number of scientists and inventors nominated? Those people not only contributed to the wealth of the UK but created many jobs for others. Bearing in mind that Doncaster does not have a university yet, and many young people do not see the relevance of science to their future job prospects, how can he ensure that, in future polls, we will still see the importance of science and that it will help to contribute to more jobs in south Yorkshire?

Tony Blair: A huge amount of additional resources will go into science over the next few years—about #2 billion. Not only is that more than under the last Conservative Government, but it is investment to which the Conservatives are opposed, as they are opposed to the additional investment in education. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the importance of teaching science in schools. That is one of the reasons why we are not just putting more resources in but allowing specialist schools to develop, particularly in relation to science and technology. That, together with the other policies that the Government are pursuing in science, gives us the best chance of repeating in the future some of the huge successes of British science in the past.

Elfyn Llwyd: The Prime Minister has acknowledged in a recent response that the drugs rehabilitation question is urgent. May I urge on him the need to look again at resources, and particularly at a simple change in current tactics? All drugs money confiscated should be ring-fenced to go into rehabilitation, as there is dire need—at this moment, there are fewer than 40 rehabilitation places available throughout the whole of Wales.

Tony Blair: We do need to make sure that there are more rehabilitation places. However, a vast amount of additional resources is going into drug treatment, and additional money is going into drug treatment in prison, as that is important, too. Many of the people in prison are drug addicts and desperately need help. I concur with what the hon. Gentleman says, but we are trying to roll out increasingly well-targeted programmes to make sure that people who are on drugs get the chance to go straight—if they do not do so, it is important that we use the force of the law against them.

Huw Edwards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is unfair that clergy and ministers of religion have no employment rights, and no redress against unfair dismissal? Can I tell the House about my constituent Paul McNab, who was dismissed from the Salvation Army when he was sick without any medical examination. His wife also lost her job in the Salvation Army, and they have no redress to anti-discrimination legislation whatever. Will he extend employment rights to all ministers of religion in all faiths and denominations, so that they have the same rights as all other occupations?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend may know that we are currently conducting a review into the extension of employment rights to give job protection to people who are particularly at risk in certain walks of life. As part of that, we are looking at the issue of those who are employed by religious faiths. I cannot tell him the outcome of the review yet, but clearly the case of Mr. McNab is germane to that review, and I am sure that it will be taken into account.

Christopher Chope: Why has the Prime Minister abandoned his support for urban sub-post offices? Two years ago, he said that he would work positively to ensure that all sub-post offices were able to become government general practitioners. He has now abandoned that and is instead bribing sub-postmasters with #180 million of taxpayers' money to close down their services. Is not that a great disservice to the pensioners in Christchurch and many other boroughs?

Tony Blair: In fact, we have an agreement with the sub-postmasters, and we will be investing hundreds of millions of pounds in the postal network over the next few years. It is inevitable, I am afraid, that some sub-post offices will close—incidentally, under the last Conservative Government thousands closed up and down the country. It is therefore absurd to pretend that there is an easy solution. However, we are putting in a lot of extra investment so that those sub-post offices that can survive and that have a viable future are given one. The very reason we entered into the agreement with the sub-postmasters is that they recognise, unlike the hon. Gentleman, that there is a genuine problem to be tackled.

Dari Taylor: A 14-year-old boy, Matthew Sheffield, died in my constituency as a consequence of an accident with an airgun. Will my right hon. Friend outline his thoughts as to how these weapons, which have a potential lethal capacity, can be controlled, if not banned?

Tony Blair: May I express through my hon. Friend my condolences to her constituent's family? Like other issues to do with antisocial behaviour, that problem is right at the top of people's agenda and it worries Members of Parliament. My hon. Friend knows that we are considering the whole issue of licensing air guns and will have something to announce on that in the next available period of time. Obviously, once again we have to balance the need to take action with the need not to overregulate. The issue is key and critical, and I know that a campaign on it has been going on for a long time in the north-east.

Nigel Evans: Will the Prime Minister look again at the guidelines given to the national lottery award-giving body, the community fund, so that those organisations that care for groups such as war veterans and the elderly get their fair share of the money? Those are the most vulnerable people in our society and they gave so much to our country. It is about time we repaid their service to Britain, rather than giving to some of the politically correct organisations which seem to be getting large sums of money.

Tony Blair: I think that the hon. Gentleman would want to acknowledge that the community fund has given an awful lot of money to veterans' organisations and others. In the end, there is a simple choice: either we can have a body that objectively gives that money out to groups or we can do it by involving politicians. I think it is better that it is done objectively through the community fund. The concerns that the hon. Gentleman expresses have been expressed by other hon. Members too, but we should not let one or two cases mislead us into thinking that the lottery money is not, on the whole, extremely well used for the benefit of community groups throughout the country, including veterans' groups.

Ian Lucas: How can there be a more important public interest than that a defendant should receive a fair trial? Lord Justice Scott made his position on public interest immunity certificates very clear following the Matrix Churchill trial. Given the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick), can my right hon. Friend confirm that there were no discussions between the Attorney-General and the prosecuting authorities in the case of the Crown v. Paul Burrell to authorise an application for a public interest immunity certificate?

Tony Blair: There was no application for a public interest immunity certificate. Obviously, when such a case arises there are all sorts of wild theories about what might or might not have happened, but that is not why the case collapsed. I assure my hon. Friend that the issue of public interest immunity certificates is not relevant to either the case or why it folded.

Andrew Lansley: On Sunday, it will be six months since the rail crash at Potters Bar in which two of my constituents died. The bereaved, those who were injured and those who travel on that line every day still have no conclusive answers to why that crash happened and how it can be prevented from happening again. What personal steps have the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Transport taken to expedite sufficient answers to why that crash occurred?

Tony Blair: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns and those of his constituents. A process needs to be undergone to ensure we know exactly what lessons can be learned. Of course it is important that that happens as quickly as possible, but it is also important that it is as thorough as possible. We simply have to let the process work its way through and come to a conclusion. As soon as we can give answers to those questions that concern the families of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, we will.

Tom Watson: Given the fact that there were 20,000 violent attacks on shop workers last year alone, will the Prime Minister support the campaign by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers to make the tackling of retail crime a key performance indicator for the police?

Tony Blair: I think I should have a discussion with the Home Secretary before I commit myself to that, but my hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of the issue. USDAW has properly highlighted the problem over the past few years and we certainly believe that action against retail crime is one very important part of the action against crime generally.

John Randall: Is the Prime Minister aware of the great concern among hon. Members on both sides of the House about the lack of time for consultation on the air services review? Will he please ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to extend that consultation period in the interests of fair play?

Tony Blair: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. He will know that we are trying to balance ensuring that we have the broadest possible consultation with the urgent need to get decisions. As I think that he will accept, there is a genuine and urgent necessity to ensure that we get decisions on those issues.

Eric Illsley: Will my right hon. Friend look again at state assistance for the British coal industry? As he will be aware, in our on-going review of our energy requirements there is huge doubt about the future viability of that industry and further state aid is required, under the scheme that ended a few months ago. Will he look again at that?

Tony Blair: I can only say what, as my hon. Friend will know, discussions are taking place with the coal industry within the Department of Trade and Industry. He will also know that in the past few years we have given additional support to the coal industry. We have to do that against the background of the tight limits on public spending, for reasons that he knows. However, discussions are under way and I hope that they will be fruitful.

Foot and Mouth Disease Inquiry Reports

Margaret Beckett: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Government's response to the foot and mouth disease inquiry reports. That response is being published today.
	When the inquiry reports were published in July, I told the House that I accepted that mistakes had been made and that I was determined to learn the lessons of what happened in 2001. The independent inquiry process that concluded in July has enabled us to do that and to move forward quickly to implement the recommendations. We are indebted to Sir Brian Follett and Dr. Iain Anderson, and I pay tribute again to them and to their teams for producing such thorough and useful reports so quickly. The Government accept virtually all the detailed recommendations of the lessons learned report and firmly endorse the lessons that Dr. Anderson draws. The recommendations made by the Royal Society will also play a major role in shaping the Government's work in that area. The Public Accounts Committee is considering a separate report from the National Audit Office.
	The Government's response to the inquiries contains a wide range of commitments and actions, including a stronger general framework for emergency preparedness, with special emphasis on response and disease control in an outbreak of animal disease and work on strengthening disease prevention. Alongside publication of that response today, the latest version of our contingency plans is available on our website for comment and consultation.
	Inevitably, some of that considerable body of work is work in progress and much requires further development and an open and transparent process of consultation with a wide range of players, including the farming industry, the wider rural community and other key players such as the local authorities.
	Dr. Anderson identified three key areas for handling any outbreak: systems, speed of response and the necessity for good science as the basis of that response. As the House may recall from my July statement, some steps, such as the establishment of a civil contingencies secretariat, have already been taken. From next year, they will be supplemented by dedicated contingency planning teams in every region, based in the Government offices.
	Plans are being developed for training and rehearsal of contingency plans, together with other players, such as local authorities. In addition, procedures are being drawn up to ramp up organisation should that be required, including the maintenance of a register of staff willing to serve in an emergency, and of their competences and skills.
	Both inquiries called for a body to provide advice to DEFRA's chief scientific adviser in emergencies, and for a review of priorities in animal health research. A science advisory group has been set up, some additional funding for veterinary teaching and research has been identified and the review of priorities is under way. The Government are committed to funding necessary research into animal disease and to increasing spending on that. Work is also under way on how to identify and manage risks as part of DEFRA's own development plans. In particular, a risk assessment report on illegal imports is in preparation, and I hope to receive it before the turn of the year.
	In the meantime, we have secured the agreement of Commissioner Byrne to a ban on personal imports of meat. We have put extra resources into detection and enforcement, including piloting the use of detector dogs, and I can announce today that the Government have agreed that responsibility for anti-smuggling checks on animals, fish, plants and their products, including meat, should be placed on one body, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, as soon as that can be achieved.
	No import controls can ever be 100 per cent. effective. That is why both inquiries emphasised the role that animal movement controls can play in checking the spread of disease. The Government have accepted the advice that the 20-day standstill rule should remain in place until a detailed risk assessment and wide-ranging cost-benefit analysis have been completed.
	We have commissioned the necessary economic and modelling studies from experts outside DEFRA, with the aim of deciding on a proportionate level of controls, and in particular, whether a movement standstill of 20 days strikes the right balance between the disease control benefits and the costs on the industry and livestock markets. Emerging findings from these studies should be available at the end of this month, to feed into decisions on the shape of movement controls to apply from next February. We expect full and final results in the first half of next year. As the inquiry reports recognise, the farming industry, too, shares responsibility for minimising disease risks and has a crucial role to play, particularly with regard to biosecurity. We will work closely with the industry in following up the inquiries' recommendations in this regard.
	We also intend to work closely with the industry in developing a comprehensive animal health and welfare strategy, which has been called for by both inquiries and by the policy commission chaired by Sir Don Curry. It is important that we share an agreed vision, which must cover protection of public health, animal disease prevention and control and animal welfare. Informal discussions with stakeholders are already taking place before the launch of a public consultation exercise later in the year across the breadth of the stakeholder community. The strategy will draw on the inquiry reports and will provide a vehicle for implementing many recommendations.
	We will also use the consultation on the strategy as a means to discuss with stakeholders the best mechanism to provide regular reports on animal disease preparedness, so that the lessons learned as a result of the 2001 outbreak and the recommendations of the inquiries are implemented and help to ensure that the experience of 2001 is never repeated.
	The House will want to know that else would be different in any future outbreak of foot and mouth disease. A national movement ban would be put in place as soon as the first case was confirmed, as my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State announced in the summer when our interim contingency plan was published.
	Restricted infected areas, so-called blue boxes, would be declared from the start in a minimum 10 km radius around infected farms, but public rights of way would need to be restricted only in a 3 km radius from those farms.
	International and European Union rules are based on the need to eradicate a disease that is unpleasant as well as highly infectious. Hence the basic strategy in all FMD-free countries is that, as a first step, animals infected with foot and mouth disease and animals that have had contact with them have to be culled. But both inquiries are saying and the Government accept that in some circumstances, additional action may be needed to control an outbreak. In that case, emergency vaccination will form part of the control strategy from the start, and this would be emergency vaccination to live, provided of course that scientific and veterinary advice is that this would be the most effective course.
	The inquiries point out that the use of emergency vaccination to live raises a number of very difficult issues—scientific, logistical and economic—but the Government are committed to tackling those issues in consultation with interested parties, with the aim of being in a position to trigger an emergency vaccination campaign should the need arise. However, the issues are substantial and that process will take some time to complete.
	Sadly, that does not mean that wider culling strategies will never again be needed. We must maintain a full armoury of weapons to tackle the diseases; hence our insistence on the flexibility proposed in the Animal Health Bill and in the lessons learned report to allow for pre-emptive culling to enable us to deal with an outbreak more quickly with fewer losses of animals and least disruption to the rural economy. The Government are consulting on a decision tree on foot and mouth disease control that would set out the factors to be taken into account in deciding the best disease control strategy for different circumstances, but we have to remember that each outbreak is unique and that we cannot prescribe in detail in advance how best to meet it. There will still be a need for scientific and veterinary judgment at the time.
	For the longer term, the Royal Society recommended that research was needed on a vaccine that could be used routinely, rather than just in an emergency, against all strains of foot and mouth disease virus and for all species. The Government recognise that that would be a desirable long-term goal and will encourage international collaboration to that end, but the House will appreciate that we are some considerable way from achieving that.
	In short, some three months only after publication of the inquiry reports, the Government are today able not only to respond formally to those reports, but to identify a massive programme of work and reform that is under way. Nothing can ever erase the horrors and tragedies of the 2001 epidemic of foot and mouth disease in the United Kingdom, but we can all resolve to establish more effective safeguards and, should those safeguards fail, an even more effective response.

David Lidington: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for her courtesy in letting me have early sight both of it and the accompanying document published by the Government.
	We will obviously want to study the Government's response in detail, but on a first reading, I can say that much of what is proposed seems sensible and welcome and that the proposals include measures that we can support. I hope that the open and transparent process of consultation to which the Secretary of State referred will number Members of Parliament among the key stakeholders and that the Government will make an early opportunity available in Government time for a full debate in the House on their response to the various inquiries.
	I should like to ask a couple of questions about vaccination. How long does the Secretary of State anticipate that it will be until the Government are in a position to include emergency vaccination in their armoury of measures for tackling a future outbreak? How does the approach outlined today in the response document relate to the draft European Commission proposals for a new directive on the control of foot and mouth disease?
	Much of the document deals with the internal workings of the Department. I hope that she will be able to acknowledge that the Government recognise that one of the lessons from the 2001 outbreak was the need for greater freedom to be given to local veterinary surgeons and officials on the ground, so that they could take decisions quickly without always having to refer them back to head office to be second-guessed there.
	Although there is much that we can welcome, I want to press the Secretary of State more critically on three subjects. I was somewhat disappointed to find when scanning the document that it contained only seven paragraphs on the illegal import of meat, compared with 14 on media strategy and communications. Does she appreciate that travellers who have been using British ports and airports in the seven months since the Government's action plan was published have found that even the limited and belated targets that the Government set themselves back in March have not made any difference to their experience when they arrive at a British port of entry?
	Is she confident that Customs and Excise will give adequate priority to this important new responsibility when it is set alongside the many other responsibilities and targets set for it by Treasury Ministers? As it is now 13 months since the last case of foot and mouth, and seven months since the action plan was introduced, will her Department undertake to tackle the question of illegal imports with a much greater sense of importance, energy and urgency than it has hitherto demonstrated?
	Does the Secretary of State appreciate the irony of the Government saying that it is impossible to have 100 per cent. security at our ports while continuing to insist—through their continued insistence on the 20-day rule on livestock movements—that farmers provide a 100 per cent. safeguard against the spread of disease? Does she understand that many livestock farmers now face a stark choice: either they break the law, or they obey it and risk going out of business? Does she recall that both the Royal Society and Dr. Anderson called for urgent and detailed risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses to be carried out? Will she tell the House why we now have to wait until next February or even later for the results of those Government studies that ought to have been commissioned and undertaken a great deal earlier? Farmers are going out of business now; they cannot afford to wait many months more, as the Government seem to expect them to do.
	I want to question the Secretary of State about the issues of stock valuation and disease insurance, which were tucked away at the end of the Government's document published this afternoon. The Government describe these areas as work still in progress, but will the right hon. Lady give us an indication of the time scale for decisions on these important matters? Will she give an assurance that she will not try to short-change farmers over compensation—for example, over compensation for the real value of breeding stock that is the fruit of a great deal of effort, sometimes put in over generations to build up a pedigree flock or herd? Farmers often look for a return on such investment over a number of years.
	On insurance, do the Government recognise that the level of any disease insurance premium will depend not only on what a farmer does, but on what the market judges to be the effectiveness or otherwise of measures undertaken by the Government, and especially on the market's judgment of the efficacy of the Government's control of the illegal import of meat, given that, in their analysis, that was the cause of last year's epidemic?
	Whenever possible, we will try to support the Government in their response to these important inquiries. After our experience last year, however, I believe that both Parliament and the industry will judge the Government not on the promises that they make but on the effectiveness of the measures that they deliver.

Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman asked how long we thought the study on vaccination would take. I believe that Sir Brian Follett thought that it would be at least 18 months before we could get an assessment of what progress we could make. As to how that relates to the new directive, I have already sent Commissioner Byrne a copy of the Government's response, and drawn to his attention this particular aspect of it so as to encourage discussion of the matter in the European Union.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the freedom of local decision making. I accept that concerns were raised about that in some circumstances, although it is not my recollection that it was a major concern. We believe that the process of discussion and trial of the contingency plans that we are now developing will clarify some of those issues and help us to resolve them, so as to obtain the best balance between consistent decision making, which will tackle disease, and decision making where it is most effective.
	The hon. Gentleman made a point about how much of the document is devoted to communications; I remind him that a lot of the inquiry report is devoted to communications. That relates, in part at least, to his point about freedom of local decision, which is regarded as a key issue that the Government should address.
	The hon. Gentleman suggests that what the Government have done so far is belated and has made little difference. I take his point about the fact that travellers coming to and through the UK, particularly returning British travellers, perhaps do not all see some of the evidence, but I can tell him from my own observations that it is certainly the case that there is a great deal more publicity today than hitherto. It is also the case that, over the summer, the Government ran a publicity campaign entitled XDon't bring back more than you bargained for", and there is action through our embassies to ensure that people who apply for visas are given advice.
	I have already mentioned our lobbying of the Commission to ensure that bringing in personal imports is now prohibited, and we have increased and are increasing funding at a number of ports to try to encourage enforcement as well as much more effective intelligence sharing on those issues. However, may I remind the hon. Gentleman that, if I recall correctly, the Select Committee suggested that it was reasonably impressed by the speed with which the Government acted on that front?
	The hon. Gentleman also talked about movements, but I am not entirely sure what is his position and that of his party. I accept that there is a delicate balance to be struck, so I am not being entirely critical, although he is rather asking for it. The fact is that the inquiry reports both said that the 20-day rule should stay in place unless and until the Government have a detailed risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. I accept that everybody would like to have them the day after tomorrow, but, if they are to be detailed, thorough and pertinent, we have—[Interruption.] We commissioned the work immediately, contrary to the implication of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. We must carry out a proper assessment.
	I understand that Sir Brian Follett, for example, said as late as yesterday evening that there is a need for quarantine stops. I know that this is a matter of concern to the industry—I understand and accept that—and we did and we shall consider it as sympathetically as we can, but we cannot ignore either the scientific and veterinary advice or, indeed, the advice of both reports on which I am replying to the House.
	There is a working party on valuation and disease insurance, which is discussing those matters with the industry, although it is in its early stages. Exactly the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised on the balance between a more standard approach to valuation, which has been the subject of some criticism, and recognising the needs of particular herds and flocks are being considered.

Andrew George: I, too, am grateful for the courtesy of having advance notice of the statement and the background document. We regret the Government's failure to hold a public inquiry, as they may have found it a good opportunity to test for the existence of a human disease that was running in parallel with foot and mouth. I refer, of course, to benefit of hindsight disease, the symptoms of which are brass neck and short-term memory loss. It is important that we move forward and consider ways of learning lessons from what was a tragic experience for the countryside.
	On that basis, I welcome the Government's concession on meat import controls and their acceptance, finally, of the Liberal Democrat amendment to the Animal Health Bill. However, what efforts will the Department make to ensure that the chances of illegal meat importation are measurably reduced? A number of questions have been asked already, but how do we measure those changes and improvements that the Government have committed themselves to achieving?
	The Secretary of State said that the Government accept virtually all the Anderson report's detailed recommendations, but can she present the House with a timetable for implementing those recommendations? It is great to have the acceptance, but we need a clear indication of how long implementation will take. What action will she take to address the view expressed by Dr. Iain Anderson that
	XA reappraisal of prevailing attitudes and behaviours within the Department would"
	benefit the climate of decision taking?
	What discussions has the Department had with the farming industry about the proposed review of the 20-day rule on movement restrictions? It would be good if the review was completed as quickly as possible. As the Secretary of State probably knows, anxiety is growing in the farming communities.
	If the Department is considering farm insurance schemes to share the costs of any possible future outbreaks of animal disease, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with the insurance industry? Is the proposal still under active consideration?
	I note that the Secretary of State's friend Lord Haskins has been making his customary attacks on farmers. Will she tell us whether her Department has a genuine joined-up policy on food from plough to plate, given that farmers are receiving a decreasing proportion of the final consumer price? She must know that the British countryside will be turned over to prairie and ranch if Lord Haskins is let loose on the farming community. How many more thousands of farmers will be forced out of business before she and Lord Haskins are satisfied?

Margaret Beckett: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities. I was not sure what he meant by his first point, however. I must confess with deep sorrow that I do not precisely recall the detail of all the Liberal Democrat amendments to the Animal Health Bill, but if what the hon. Gentleman said about meat import controls related to imports for personal use, I must tell him that this is not a Government concession. We have discussed it, and have pressed the European Union to adopt it as an EU rule. We are delighted that the Commissioner has agreed that the present practice should stop.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the timetable for implementation. As he probably recalls, there are about 100 recommendations, and I cannot give a timetable for all of them. I can tell him, however, that when he has a chance to look through the detailed schedule containing the various recommendations and responses, he will gain an impression of where the balance lies. I can also tell him that the Department intends to establish a work programme to show how we are dealing with the different issues, some of which require international action and consultation.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about reappraisal of attitudes and behaviours in the Department. A substantial programme of change is under way in DEFRA, and we are consulting other Government agencies such as the Office of Public Service Reform. That has been proceeding for some time.
	We are indeed discussing the issue of animal movements with the farming industry. As I have said, we hope and expect to receive some interim indications by the end of the month. We will not have the full report before the new year, but we hope we shall have it in time to look at what the overall regime should be.
	I cannot add much to what I have already said about insurance, but we should bear in mind that Lord Haskins is a farmer himself. I think he would strongly reject the notion that either of us wants to see British farming as a series of featureless prairies. I agree, however, that we must try to find ways of enabling the British farming community to secure a greater share of the wealth that accrues from the produce that they rear or grow. That is dealt with in the Curry report and in our response to it.

Russell Brown: As my right hon. Friend knows, the situation was dealt with much more quickly north of the border. That is because local authorities went into action speedily with emergency planning procedures. I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments about local authorities; I hope she will impress on them the need for regular updates on contingency plans, and desktop exercises in relation to such procedures.
	There is heavy emphasis on illegal imports. That problem worries us all, but Conservative Members seem to be suffering from selective amnesia. There was a combination of factors: there was an illegal import, but there was also a farmer who did not prepare swill properly. That should never be forgotten. May I also say that there has been a significant cost, not only in terms of heartbreak, but in terms of finance. We need to look at insurance. This is about plough to plate and the food chain. It is not about hobby farming, which cost us significantly in terms of compensation to many farmers.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Secretary of State replies, I should say that I certainly want brief questions. There is no way that I can get through the list of hon. Members unless they ask brief questions.

Margaret Beckett: Of course I take my hon. Friend's point about the need for greater co-operation and rehearsal with local authorities. That is very much part of the purpose of the rehearsal and training that we intend to undertake in future.

David Curry: The right hon. Lady is a frequent flier, often over some quite long distances, so she will know that it is entirely possible to pass through a British airport without any sight of the sign warning against illegal imports. The carousels where passengers wait for their baggage are the most obvious places to put the signs, yet they are entirely innocent of such signs. Now that we have a co-ordinated service, will she please make sure that the signs are where passengers can see them, not decorating the back of the arrivals hall where nobody has the time or would think to look at them?

Margaret Beckett: I entirely accept the right hon. Gentleman's point about the carousels. We have been endeavouring to work with the airlines and to encourage them to do more to remind people in-flight about illegal imports and to take other related action. I hope and anticipate that much more will be done to combat illegal imports as I share the right hon. Gentleman's view that it is important that people understand that they must not act illegally in that respect.

Eric Martlew: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree with me that the real lesson to be learned is never again should we have the disaster that affected Cumbria and other parts of the United Kingdom last year. Nowhere in the EU should people have to suffer as we did. Is not the only way to do that to develop a vaccine and use it routinely? My right hon. Friend said that such a vaccination programme was a long way away, but my understanding is that it could be introduced within 18 months, given the resources. When we have that vaccine, whenever that is, will it be the Government's policy to vaccinate all animals routinely?

Margaret Beckett: I share and understand my hon. Friend's concern for his constituents in Cumbria. There are two separate issues with regard to vaccination. The first relates to emergency vaccination that we hope will be available within some 18 months or so. It may be possible to get validated tests, for example, to distinguish between an animal that is infected and an animal that has been vaccinated, but that still requires some work. The other issue concerns the development of vaccines that could be used in an non-emergency. I fear that a routine prophylactic vaccination for every animal is a lot further away, because, as I think my hon. Friend will be aware, there is a plethora of different strains of the virus and up to now the international community has not shown much interest in such an enormous undertaking. However, I can assure him that the Government are taking seriously the advice of the Royal Society that it is something that we should encourage the international community to re-examine and I have already written to this effect.

Bill Wiggin: May I start with a quick plug for Herefordshire tourism at the Britain visitor centre? One of the subjects discussed there this morning was the disastrous foot and mouth outbreak, so I am pleased that the three points that the Minister identified—systems, speed of response and the necessity for good science—are in the statement.
	On the issue of systems, can the Secretary of State tell us whether people who are wandering around in the countryside will also be in some way responsible for contributing to the biosecurity that farmers will need in order to avoid this disease, should it ever break out again? In terms of speed of response, Dr. Anderson identified the qualifications of veterinary surgeons as being key. Can the Secretary of State explain why, during the summer, after Dr. Anderson reported, there was an embargo on hiring state vets? On the necessity for good science, the gamma inteferon blood test that is currently available for bovine tuberculosis is not being used or trialled yet. Perhaps the Secretary of State might bring that about shortly.

Margaret Beckett: If I may, I shall begin where the hon. Gentleman ended. I believe that a pilot scheme is currently examining that issue, and we hope—

Hon Members: Where?

Elliot Morley: It is being rolled out.

Margaret Beckett: The scheme is being rolled out. [Interruption.] I shall write to the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) on the matter, as I am afraid that the geographical location of the pilot scheme is not present in my mind.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about the general issue of biosecurity, and we accept that there is a need to remind everyone of the importance of behaving with caution and common sense. On vets and speed of response, unfortunately there was something of a hiatus in recruitment in the summer. Frankly, after all the expenditure of the past year or so, we ran out of money. However, I can assure him that the problem is being overcome.

Ronnie Campbell: Does the report state that never again will we see piles of animals being burned or even buried, usually in the wrong place? We witnessed such scenes during the foot and mouth crisis, and many constituents were very concerned about the smell, and about the burying of animals beside streams and schools. Does the report make it clear that such things will never happen again?

Margaret Beckett: I of course accept that distress was caused by the action that had to be undertaken during the outbreak. I did not go into detail about everything in the reports, but I know that Dr. Anderson considered whether there were hazards from such burials. He said that there was no evidence of that, but I fully accept that there is a difference between actual hazards and people experiencing great discomfort and unpleasantness. As a result of reassessment of the handling of the last outbreak, the hierarchy of steps taken in respect of disposal—beginning with commercial incineration and proceeding to rendering—is different from that which applied last time. That means that the issues that my hon. Friend has raised should not, we hope, ever need to be raised again.

David Burnside: If the Secretary of State were to fly into Belfast international airport, in my constituency, she would find out immediately how the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development brands livestock and produce to stop illegal food imports. That is carried out professionally and well, and we would like to offer that lesson to the rest of the United Kingdom. Can the Secretary of State give the House some more details on policing resources, which is a major concern? She referred in her statement to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise getting more resources. We in Northern Ireland have a land border, which poses a greater problem than that on the mainland, and the policing of foot and mouth is absolutely crucial. Will she also give the House some information on the reason why very few prosecutions were brought after the foot and mouth outbreak? The two cases in Northern Ireland—in Armagh and the glens of Antrim—resulted from the illegal transfer of animals from the British mainland. Prosecutions were brought but no convictions were achieved.

Margaret Beckett: I am afraid that I do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman's last question. Obviously, the issue of who is prosecuted, and under what circumstances, is a matter not for me but for the relevant authorities. However, I shall inquire as to whether any general information is available that I can give to him.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about the additional resources that are being provided, to which I have already referred. Some #1.5 million is funding additional enforcement officers at ports and airports. That funding began in October, and is being provided for a number of ports and airports across the United Kingdom, so we are beginning to step up our policing efforts. Of course, we took some relevant action earlier, such as increasing the powers of enforcement officers.

Ian Davidson: May I raise with the Minister what I believe to be a major omission from her report? One of the most worrying and upsetting elements of the crisis was the way in which some saw the opportunity for price gouging and fraud. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that any fraud in future events is thoroughly punished? What steps has she taken to ensure that price gouging is avoided? What is she doing to tackle the culture of milking the system, which is so prevalent in agriculture?

Margaret Beckett: I accept my hon. Friend's concerns. I am aware of the vigour with which he and other hon. Members raise those issues on the Public Accounts Committee. All I can say to him is that we are looking very carefully at what is being said about those issues and we look forward to the report from the PAC, as well as that from the National Audit Office. Perhaps Xlooking forward" is not quite the right phrase, but we are certainly in anticipation of them. That is very much the background to some of the issues that are being and have been discussed about how we handle the valuation issue in future.
	May I also add for the information of the House that I am advised that there are definitely posters about illegal imports on the carousels at terminal 2, Heathrow?

James Paice: May I congratulate the Minister on her statement that it is impossible to guarantee that any situation is 100 per cent. risk free? I hope that that heralds a change in attitude for the whole Government because it would save the House a tremendous amount of time legislating. Given that that is the case, as she rightly says, may I emphasise to her that whether there are labels on carousels in terminal 2 is actually a small point, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) was right to make it? However, countless travellers, including myself and some of her hon. Friends, who flew into Heathrow direct from central Africa about three weeks ago not only did not see any notice, but did not even see a Customs officer when we went through Customs control. There was no way that anyone would have been able to stop or deal with us if one of us had been transgressing. May I also repeat the point that was made earlier—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to be brief?

James Paice: Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I simply want to reinforce the point about the number of officers required to police our efforts: #1.5 million is very welcome, but the right hon. Lady knows that it is not a large number when translated into people. We need to match what other countries have in terms of the number people policing imports into our country.

Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman may not have seen the information or the warnings, but I reiterate that our embassies and consulates have been giving out warnings, particularly to people applying for visas. We have been pressing the airlines to use some of the material that we are producing. Very recently, I received an e-mail from west Africa from someone saying, XCongratulations. I have just come through the airport"—wherever it was—Xand seen the right kind of warnings. It is about time, and it never happened before."
	I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question about why he did not see any Customs officers when he last came through the airport, but may I observe, without prejudice, that, of course, the fact that he could not see them does not mean that they could not see him?

Paddy Tipping: The Secretary of State has made it clear that, in the event of a major outbreak, there will be no blanket closure of footpaths. Is not one of the important lessons to be learned the value of visitors to the countryside in terms of their contribution to the local rural economy? Against that background, will she quicken her efforts to switch payments to farmers from subsidises on production to payments to farmers who lift the landscape, enhance the environment and encourage visitors into the countryside?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the fact that the outbreak brought home to people the value of access to the countryside and the contribution that visitors make to the countryside, but it brought home to a lot of people just how much they valued their access, and there was a welcome resurgence of visits to the English countryside and tourism spots in the United Kingdom.
	Secondly, my hon. Friend asks whether I can quicken the process. I do not know about that, but I assure him that we are pursuing CAP reform with all the vigour at our command. Although I have not seen the assessment on which the figure is based, I recently heard the chief executive of the Environment Agency observe that, in her judgment, it was possible that farmers were contributing environmental benefit and improvement to our economy to the tune of some #900 million, and that they were not being reimbursed for it.

Alan Beith: What is the Secretary of State doing about Dr. Anderson's recommendation that there should be research into compensation for communities where mass burial has taken place? What is she doing to dispel the impression that, although the authorities could find Widdrington in my constituency pretty quickly when they had more than 100,000 carcases to bury, they are not sure where it is now?

Margaret Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that Dr. Anderson suggested that we research the issue of compensation, although I believe that that was in international context. Some work on that is being undertaken.

Tom Levitt: As a fellow Derbyshire MP, my right hon. Friend will know that High Peak escaped the direct effects of foot and mouth, but that there were indirect effects on farming and tourism. As a result, the measures that she has announced today, especially those to do with rights of way, will be welcome. I talk to my farmers regularly. They have expressed concerns about the 20-day standstill, but I believe that they know in their hearts why that is necessary, and why the industry is being asked to play its part.
	However, other hon. Members will recognise the message that my farmers give to me, which is that the restrictions on imports—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get to the point of his question.

Tom Levitt: Is there not a political imperative to ensure that imports are controlled—and seen to be so—as well as to put in place the practical imperatives that my right hon. Friend has described?

Margaret Beckett: I recognise the concern that my hon. Friend expresses. It will be interesting to see what the risk assessment on this issue produces, although I am pretty confident that it will say that illegal imports pose a risk. However, we shall have to see what balance should be struck between personal imports and bulk imports made illegally. One feels a natural revulsion at many of the personal imports that one hears about, and the introduction of the new procedures has increased protection. However, there are questions about how easy it is for a personal import of that sort to get so far that it is likely to be in contact with a susceptible animal. Illegal bulk imports are perhaps a greater risk, but I have not seen the result of the risk assessment, and that is exactly the sort of issue that it must address.

Michael Jack: Given the comments made by Sir Brian Follett to the Select Committee, will the Secretary of State say what work is to be done to improve understanding of the pathways of disease spread for diseases such as foot and mouth? That understanding is needed if we are to develop better on-farm biosecurity measures. Also, what is the right hon. Lady doing to deal with the fact that Britain still faces a threat from diseases such as West Isle fever, another problem pointed out by Sir Brian? What is being done to counter other major threats of animal disease?

Margaret Beckett: First, consideration of such matters is very much part of the animal health strategy. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I must say that I had no idea of the range of diseases to which animals are prone until I had the good fortune to occupy this post. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned Sir Brian Follett's recommendations about studies of disease, a matter that I touched on in my opening remarks. Our new chief scientific adviser, with the assistance of the new board appointed to support him, is undertaking a thorough review of all the Department's work. That will involve a thorough reassessment of priorities, and the right hon. Gentleman has identified exactly the sort of matter that will be looked at.

Peter Atkinson: The Secretary of State will know that the independent inquiries held in Cumbria and Northumberland made some important recommendations based on experience on the front line. Why will she not give a formal response to those reports?

Margaret Beckett: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, we gave a broad general response. Certainly those reports were fed in and enlightened the course of the other inquiries. It is just not possible to go through all the inquiries in the degree of detail that would be required.

Simon Thomas: Will the Secretary of State say a little more about the assessment that she is making of the 20-day rule for animal movements? Will that assessment take into account alternative strategies, particularly, for example, thorough animal movement recording as an alternative to the 20-day rule, which is very injurious to farmers in my constituency in west Wales?
	Buried in the back of the document is a reference to the Government's response to lessons learned no. 37 in which the right hon. Lady says that she is in discussion with the National Assembly for Wales regarding the devolution of further powers on animals to the National Assembly. Will she support such moves if they prove to be equally or more efficacious than the present situation?

Margaret Beckett: On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, all I can say is that the discussion continues, but it is a very cordial one. On the 20-day rule, I am not carrying out the assessment—it is being carried out by the relevant bodies which are considering what alternatives could provide reassurance.

John Greenway: Can the Secretary of State give the House regular updates on vaccination? I think that she said that it may be at least 18 months before a vaccination is available, but we would like to know what progress is being made on testing the vaccines.
	On the 20-day standstill period, notwithstanding what she has said and what the two reports recommended, she will know that there will be huge disappointment among livestock farmers that there appears to be no progress on this. When will the risk analysis and the cost-benefit analysis be concluded? Livestock farmers need some certainty because they have to plan their businesses too.

Margaret Beckett: I understand that great disappointment will be felt, and I understand that many people in livestock farming simply wish the Government to abandon all movement controls. However, I say to the hon. Gentleman in all sincerity, given the strong recommendations of the Royal Society inquiry as well as of the lessons learned inquiry that we do no such thing, that I am afraid that the Government did not feel that it would be responsible to take such steps. We have made some minor amendments and exemptions, as he knows, to try to take account of some of the concerns about the movement of breeding stock. However disappointed people may be, I hope that they will understand why we did not feel able simply to abandon the restrictions. We hope that we will have some preliminary results by the end of the month, although we do not expect the full report until into the new year. Of course we will endeavour to keep the House informed about vaccination but I am not sure whether it is as simple as saying every so often that we will have a report on progress.

Angela Browning: Now that the right hon. Lady has had a chance to study the reports that she commissioned, what, in her judgment, was the cause of last year's outbreak?

Margaret Beckett: Someone acted illegally in importing diseased meat and someone else acted illegally in not reporting the incidence of foot and mouth disease and in allowing movement, which meant that the disease was spread. If blame there is, that is where it lies.

Roger Williams: First, may I say how much I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that Her Majesty's Customs and Excise will now be given sole responsibility for the control of animal and animal health products at ports and airports? I have long advocated that approach, and I am glad that it has been accepted by the Government. There remains the issue of what priority Customs and Excise will give that responsibility and what resources will be made available to them to carry it out.

Margaret Beckett: We are discussing increased resources with Customs and Excise. Responsibility for the material remains with DEFRA, but import controls will be the responsibility of Customs and Excise, and I feel sure that they will give the matter the priority that it deserves. That is, in part, something to which Members of the House might turn their attention.

Peter Ainsworth: May I join my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) in welcoming most of what the right hon. Lady has said? Given the criticisms contained in the Anderson report in particular and the flurry of activity that it has engendered, does she still maintain, as she once said, that the Government's response to foot and mouth had been a minor triumph? Or will she take possibly the last opportunity—that I will offer her anyway—to apologise and say sorry for the trauma of foot and mouth?

Margaret Beckett: I made it plain following the publication of the Anderson report that the Government accept that mistakes were made. I also made it plain, as Dr. Anderson's report clearly shows, that a huge effort was undertaken to try to bring the disease under control. Dr. Anderson has previously identified the huge amount of utterly devoted work by staff in my Department and many others across the country. He pointed out:
	Xmany farmers, local people and government officials made heroic efforts to fight this disease and limit its effects. Through their efforts it was finally overcome and eradicated after 221 days, one day less than the epidemic of 1967–68."
	Given the unprecedented nature of the outbreak, that was an achievement. If I used the words Xminor triumph", it was against the background of ferocious and unjustified criticism of staff in the field, not least staff in my Department.

John Burnett: Do the Government's contingency plans include the ability in an emergency to introduce a welfare cull? Does the right hon. Lady accept that they should, and that a welfare cull with fair compensation should be able to function swiftly and efficiently in the early days of an emergency?

Margaret Beckett: It is our hope that there will never again have to be a welfare cull. One aim of the trialling and the work that is being undertaken is try to ensure that we do not find ourselves in circumstances where such a thing has to be contemplated.

Richard Bacon: Having flown earlier this year from Ascension Island near equatorial Africa into a British airport and entered the country without speaking to a single human being, and having yesterday spent several hours with Customs and Excise at Dover seeing what it does, I am not persuaded that the Government's recently announced publicity campaign has got any traction. Is the Secretary of State aware that the main priorities of Customs and Excise are tobacco, alcohol and class A drugs? Does she accept that while the inclusion in the statement of a ban on personal imports was extremely welcome—although the fact that she has to ask Commissioner Byrne for permission is deeply offensive—what is required is a fundamental step-change in the understanding and psychology of people travelling to this country such as that which occurs when people go to Australia and the United States? Much more is needed, and soon.

Margaret Beckett: I can only repeat that there are posters at Heathrow, regional airports and other international airports. Some 20 international airlines have now agreed to distribute leaflets, either in-flight or at check-in desks and information points—I assure the hon. Gentleman that that has taken some work—and we are looking at other outlets for distributing leaflets, including high street travel agents, vaccination centres and regional post offices. I have mentioned already the advice that visitors get. A radio filler has been distributed to 118 regional commercial radio stations and a couple of campaign videos are due to be distributed soon. A great deal of work is therefore under way, much of which has to done through other people and agencies, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to pursue it.

Andrew Turner: I welcome the Secretary of State's remarks about the responsibilities of Customs and Excise, but will she make the point to her colleagues in the Treasury that that work needs to be done in uncanalised routes of entry as much as at Dover and the airports? What steps is she taking to enable farmers to take their animals to slaughter locally instead of being forced by supermarkets to drag them halfway across the country?

Margaret Beckett: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the implications of various movements, but I believe that he is talking about commercial contracts, and I am not in a position to interfere with them.

Anne McIntosh: The right hon. Lady will be aware that foot and mouth came late to the Vale of York and that the strongest criticism in the Anderson inquiry concerned the question of a contingency plan. What message can I take back to my farmers to satisfy them that there is a contingency plan for North Yorkshire? Will the right hon. Lady assure them that the high standards of animal biosecurity that apply to everyone else will apply to her own Department? A picture of her departmental colleague, Lord Whitty, appeared in our local newspaper on the same day as an advertisement saying that waterproof overall trousers and wellington boots must be worn, but he was visibly wearing neither.

Margaret Beckett: I am afraid that I am not familiar with the episode to which the hon. Lady refers, nor do I know where that photograph is supposed to have been taken. One of the less attractive features of the desperate attempt to make all of this stick to the Government was the pretence in some quarters that the disease was spread by officials from the Ministry rather than by the type of movement that actually led to its spread.
	I realise that it is not much help to say that the contingency plan is available on the website—but it is. We shall of course look for other ways to make it available. The most important thing that we want and need from the hon. Lady's constituents and anyone else with relevant experience is their input to that contingency plan. It is a living document on which we shall continually be carrying out much more training, trialling and rehearsal. What we need most is the input of practitioners in the field to identify the weaknesses before there are any further animal disease outbreaks, not after.

Stephen O'Brien: On behalf of my farmers and constituents, who are deeply concerned, I endorse all the points made about the 20-day rule. The Secretary of State will have noticed that paragraph 4.6.3 of the report observes that the Government do not rule out the possibility of on-farm burial. My constituency was the epicentre of the 1967 epidemic in which there was an enormous amount of on-farm burial, yet there were no after-effects for any animal or person, nor any type of crop distress that proved that infection had resulted. I would recommend burial on farm. How does the right hon. Lady reconcile that possibility with the EU directive that her Government are intent on implementing that would stop on-farm burial in all circumstances from 2003, as a result of the concerns of the Environment Agency?

Margaret Beckett: The phraseology of the report shows that, at present, there are circumstances in which on-farm burial could not be ruled out if it was necessary. It is not a preferred option. The hon. Gentleman knows that there were, and would be, environmental considerations, such as the level of the water table. One thing that was often left out of the discussions of the impact of on-farm burial during the period of the disease outbreak was that we must now take account of the aftermath of BSE.

BILL PRESENTED

Energy-Saving Materials (Reduced Rate Of Vat)

Ms Julia Drown, supported by Dr. Brian Iddan, Mr. Paul Truswell, Tom Brake, Alan Simpson, Brian White, Vera Baird, Norman Lamb, Peter Bottomley, Mr. Simon Thomas, Clive Efford and Joan Walley, presented a Bill to reduce the rate of Value Added Tax levied on the supply of energy-saving materials and the cost of their installation; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 206].

Single European Language

Peter Viggers: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to make proposals to the European Council for the establishment of one language as the official language of the European Union; to provide for the development of a single European language; and to establish a date by which the language will become the official language of the United Kingdom.
	I have promoted a number of ten-minute Bills over the years. My mind goes back to an occasion in 1979 when I promoted a Bill immediately before Margaret Thatcher, as she then was, moved a motion of confidence in the Government. The good news was that my Bill undoubtedly had the widest audience of any ten-minute Bill in the history of this House; many millions of people watched me live on television introducing my Bill. I did a deal with the Government: if I kept my ten-minute Bill down to three sentences, they would give me what I wanted—pensions for 25,000 service widows. This is a rather different occasion, and the audience for this Bill is more like the normal audience for such Bills.
	My starting point is a concern about language differences in the European Union, which are a barrier to communication and trade. As the European Union has sought to deal with the barrier of currency between nations, so it is appropriate for it to address the barrier of language between nations.
	It is in the European Union institutions that the problem is the most exposed. There are 11 recognised languages and, currently, the rules of the EU say that any citizen has the right to communicate with any European institution in any recognised language and to receive a reply in the same language. As the Commission has said, linguistic diversity is an essential aspect of the common cultural heritage; in other words, XWe agree to differ."
	The formula for calculating the number of language combinations within the EU is Xn squared minus n" where Xn" is the number of languages in question. If we have 11 languages, that is X11 squared minus 11", making 110 language combinations in the EU at the moment. The addition of one extra language would take the number of language combinations from 110 to 132.
	The EU spends about #150 million on translation and interpretation; it has about 1,200 full-time interpreters, 600 support staff and about 2,000 contract staff. Their work is to translate about 1.25 million pages that go in the 40-truck convoy that makes its way monthly from Strasbourg to Brussels to Luxembourg.
	That is the present situation. As the EU expands, as is planned, and if the number of official languages goes, as is expected, from 11 to 23, the number of language combinations would increase from 110 to 506. Translation and interpretation would more than double—way more. Even if relay languages were used—for instance, translating Greek into English into Estonian, or Slovakian into French into Spanish—the work would be way greater than the total translation resources would bear. We cannot go on like this. For some of the smaller countries, the number of recognised interpreters is quite small. We should be addressing ourselves to the language problem. Our search will logically start in finding the most-used language in the world and perhaps building on that.

Elfyn Llwyd: Tell us what that is.

Peter Viggers: It is certainly not Welsh. It is, in fact, Mandarin Chinese, used as a first language by 874 million people. However, not even all the Chinese use Mandarin. I remember meeting a Chinaman once and greeting him XNi hao ma"; he replied, memorably, XI am sorry. I do not speak Mandarin."
	The second most popular first language in the world is Hindi, at 366 million, but that is not much help either. The third language, English—at 341 million—has the advantage of being the first language in 104 countries, which is more than twice as many as the second most popular first language. Adopting English as the official language would reduce the number of language combinations from 110 to 10 and, on expansion, would reduce the number to 22 from 506.
	It would be very good if I could sit down at that point, having done my job, and say that English should be the language of the EU, but enormous issues of national pride are involved. First, it is a principle of the EU that all languages are equal and, secondly, the chances of persuading the French to give up French as the second de facto drafting language in the EU must be assessed realistically as zero.
	We must look for a European solution, and here we have a precedent to guide us. The EU faced up to a similar problem with its currencies. Instead of choosing the strongest and most widely used currency, the deutschmark—as one would have thought was natural—it chose to create something new and artificial called the euro. Following that precedent, it would be logical to create a European language, which I call Eural.
	To those who say that that is fanciful, I say that I agree. But is it any more fanciful than what we have now: a single currency that depends critically upon a stability and growth pact that is ignored by the leading countries and which the President of the Commission refers to as stupid? I think that I am justified in following my fancy for a moment to see where it leads us.
	Eural would, of course, be created as an artificial language. If we are scrapping the language of Shakespeare, it is only reasonable to scrap the languages of Voltaire, Dante, Lorca and the rest. Before we enter Eural, however, we would have to produce five tests to decide how and when we join. Clearly, those tests would be artificial, very general and subjective to allow the Government to decide when we join the Eural. We would, of course, need a Minister to decide who should administer the five tests, and who would be better than the Deputy Prime Minister, who speaks in virtual Eural already? I could give a large number of examples, but I shall read a transcript of just one of his speeches:
	XOur objectives are clear . . . The objectives remain the same and indeed it has been made clear by the Prime Minister in a speech yesterday that the objectives are clear. And the one about the removal of the Taliban is not something we have as a clear objective"—
	there was prolonged laughter at that point—
	Xbut it is possibly a consequence that will flow from the Tallybin clearly giving protection to bin Laden and the UN resolution made it absolutely clear that anyone that finds them in that position declares themselves an enemy and that clearly is a matter for these objectives."
	I think we see the thrust of that. He is the man who said in a newspaper interview:
	XThe Green Belt is a Labour achievement, and we mean to build on it".
	Eural will have significant value when it comes to Government promises, as, again, the Deputy Prime Minister said in 1997 and repeated in 1998:
	XI will have failed if in five years' time there are not far fewer journeys by car. It's a tall order, but I urge you to hold me to it."
	Similarly, a junior Minister in the Home Office who referred to a target of deporting 30,000 failed asylum seekers a year went on to say that
	Xa target is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end. It is a driver."
	Furthermore, when the former Secretary of State for Education was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) whether she would resign if the Government did not reach their literacy and numeracy targets by 2002, she replied:
	XOf course I will. Indeed, I generously commit the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), too. We speak with one voice."
	Apparently, the time had gone when
	Xa Secretary of State would promise to resign but the rest of the team would not go too."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 2 March 1999; Vol. 326, c. 948.]
	Of course, not only did he not go, but he was promoted to her job.
	The use of less precise language will save the Government and the nation from the humiliation of promises being broken without any shame or regret. Eural might therefore appeal to this Government if not to anyone else. My plea, of course, is for greater use of English. If that fails, however, the alternative should be considered. For all those reasons, although not with any great confidence that my Bill will become law in the short time remaining in the Session, I commend my Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peter Viggers.

Single European Language

Mr. Peter Viggers accordingly presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to make proposals to the European Council for the establishment of one language as the official language of the European Union; to provide for the development of a single European language; and to establish a date by which the language will become the official language of the United Kingdom: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Thursday 7 November, and to be printed [Bill 207].

ANIMAL HEALTH BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order (28 June 2001),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Animal Health Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 12th November 2001:
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six hours after their commencement or at Ten o'clock, whichever is later.
	2. Those proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the Table below and shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) in accordance with the second column of that Table.
	
		
			 Amendments Time for conclusion 
			 1 to 12 1½ hours after commencement 
			 13 to 45 3½ hours after commencement 
			 14 to 44 5 hours after commencement 
			 46 to 74 6 hours after commencement or Ten o'clock, whichever is later 
		
	
	Subsequent stages
	3.—(1) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question put.
	(2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Mr. Morley.]
	Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Animal Health Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 5, 7, 11, 45, 47 and 49, which are to be considered today. If the House agrees to these Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 1
	 — 
	Foot-and-Mouth Disease

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 3, at end insert—
	X( ) In the Animal Health Act 1981 (c.22) (in this Act referred to as the 1981 Act)
	before paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 insert—
	X(2A) The Secretary of State shall give priority to a Xvaccinate to live" policy prior to causing to be slaughtered animals on premises where no infection has been detected.""

Elliot Morley: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Government amendment (a) in lieu and sub-amendment (i).

Elliot Morley: The House has discussed the Bill in detail. I said that as a result of pertinent points raised in Committee we would give further consideration to amendments, especially in the other place.
	Significant changes have been made to the Bill. We accepted some of them as a result of discussions in the course of the parliamentary process, and I want to pay tribute to my colleague, Lord Whitty, who did a good job in dealing with the Bill in the House of Lords. Other changes result from commitments that we gave in Committee to consider certain aspects in further detail so that we could be more transparent. We also wanted to reassure hon. Members and reflect their reasonable concerns.
	Amendment No. 1 deals with vaccination. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear in her statement that we accept the recommendations of the Anderson and Follett reports that vaccination should have a more prominent role in the decision-tree process of the measures that we would apply to combat any disease outbreak. That commitment has been given. It is also recognised in our revised interim contingency plan, which is being made public today. It is part of a developing contingency plan arising from discussions with the industry.
	Although we understand the reason behind the amendment, we cannot accept it. As we made clear in our response to the reports, we will, ideally, want to use a vaccinate-to-live strategy if emergency vaccination is used. There may, however, be scenarios in which, following the appropriate veterinary and scientific advice, culling of non-infected premises is deemed more appropriate than vaccination. We do not want that advice to be restricted artificially in terms of the most appropriate disease control methods that could be applied.
	It is also important to stress that European Union legislation requires slaughter of livestock on premises that have an epidemiological link to infected premises. For example, in some circumstances slaughter will not be the last resort, and we would want to stamp out an immediate outbreak by culling, as identified in the Royal Society and Anderson reports. The amendment therefore runs contrary to EU law. It is unworkable and we cannot accept it, even though we are not necessarily against the reason behind it.
	We have offered a Government amendment in lieu. It has been carefully drafted to address concerns about the role of vaccination in future disease outbreaks. It sets out explicitly on the face of the Bill that the Secretary of State must consider
	Xthe most appropriate means of preventing the spread of the disease."
	In particular, the Secretary of State must consider whether vaccination is more appropriate in the circumstances. It is not entirely dissimilar to the amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats. I hope they recognise that we understand the reasoning behind their amendment. Although our amendment reflects concerns about restrictions, we are not against the general principle of recognising the changes in the Government's response and our acceptance of the recommendations in the Follett and Anderson reports. We want to emphasise that by putting it on the face of the Bill. Our approach also reflects the inquiry reports and recent European developments, which have underlined the need for vaccination to play a higher profile in future disease outbreaks. The Government response to the inquiry sets out our strategy for taking those recommendations forward.

Elfyn Llwyd: Will the Minister explain the difference between what he now proposes to put on the face of the Bill and what de facto took place during the foot and mouth debacle? Back Benchers understood that Ministers were considering vaccination at various points.

Elliot Morley: That is true. We were considering vaccination at a number of points. Traditional methods of dealing with an outbreak on that scale, which were based on the inquiry into the 1967 outbreak, were based on mass culling. What is different about our response to the Anderson and Royal Society reports is that vaccination, which was on the periphery of the responses—we had not resolved many of the issues within the food industry or the agricultural, food and livestock sectors—had not been pushed up the order of priority as regards decision making. It was a specialist application, to be used in certain circumstances, and was considered on a number of occasions, as the hon. Gentleman rightly states.
	The Anderson and Royal Society reports made it clear that stamping out should be the initial response, but that vaccination should go further up the agenda: it should be considered right away, in the appropriate circumstances and the appropriate way, as a tool for controlling disease outbreaks. It is a different response, compared with previous contingency plans. That is reflected in our revised contingency plan and in what I am saying today about accepting the concerns about vaccination by putting it on the face of the Bill, which will allow us to take into account a range of options for what method is applied. Vaccination will, however, be more prominent in the decision-making process.

Paul Flynn: Is it not true that in April 2001 the Government's advisers said that a large number of cattle in the north of England should be vaccinated, but the National Farmers Union, in the shape of Ben Gill, wrecked that decision? He insisted on laying down impossible conditions that could not be met. If the Bill becomes an Act, will it withstand any future wrecking tactics of the NFU?

Elliot Morley: In Cumbria, our scientific advisory group made a unanimous recommendation that vaccination should be used on cattle, more in relation to disposal than as a disease-control measure. Due to the nature and spread of the disease, the advantage of vaccination would have been to reduce the number of cattle killed and, therefore, the need to dispose of them. There is no denying that there was significant disagreement within the farming sector; concerns were also expressed in the food industry. We are trying to look forward rather than back. What is clear to me, as I have said, is that it is difficult to decide the role of vaccination, where to use it and the priority that it should have in disease-control strategies and response in the midst of one of the world's biggest epidemics. It is difficult to get that agreement. It is much better to debate that matter now, have proper contingency arrangements and reflect the change both in the Government's response to the independent inquiries and on the face of the Bill.

David Drew: Does my hon. Friend accept that part of the problem is that there has to be some consensus about the actions that have to be taken? We all know what went wrong last time—there was a great deal of disagreement over policy and actions among farmers. How does he anticipate that we shall be able to reach a stage at which we at least share an understanding of the policy options? As he says, that cannot be done in the midst of an outbreak; it has to be done now, and we have to build that consensus. Is that what the Government are talking about?

Elliot Morley: I do not want to go into great detail about the various strategies, as that would divert attention from the amendments. However, I am happy to answer interventions from hon. Members on that point. There are still many issues in relation to vaccination that need to be resolved. It is not a simple matter. There are issues such as tests and acceptance by the livestock industry and the food and farming industry, but we want to engage all the stakeholders in discussions on the matter. There is a recommendation from the independent reports that vaccination be considered more prominently as a response. We are not being asked to use vaccination as a response in all circumstances. One of the problems with amendment No. 1 is that we need some flexibility, but we accept that vaccination must move up the agenda and that we must address and resolve a range of issues.

David Curry: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the problems during the epidemic was that there were announcements by the Government, but a long period elapsed before anything happened in the countryside to implement the announcements? There was a great deal of doubt and public agonising by the Government about which course of action to take. Professor Sir Brian Follett said that the contingency plan should outline clearly to all the stakeholders the various options and actions, but should culminate in parliamentary approval of a contingency plan. Would not that be the way of answering the point made by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), who seems to have disappeared? Farmers should know what the various scenarios are and the responses to them. It is not good enough to put the contingency plan on the website. We need to have sight of it and debate it publicly.

Elliot Morley: I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. Part of our interim contingency plan is a decision tree, as it is called. One can see clearly the various circumstances and the decisions that one might take about whether or not to vaccinate and what sort of vaccination one might use—suppressive, preventive or ring vaccination. A range of issues and applications is clearly laid out in a decision tree.
	We are still in the process of engaging stakeholders in the development of interim strategies, so that we can have a proper contingency plan in place, probably early in the new year. We very much welcome the scrutiny of bodies such as the Select Committee in the development of a plan, so that it is open and transparent and people understand the reasoning behind it and the options available.
	We are, of course, developing a whole animal health strategy. We are discussing foot and mouth, but the Bill deals with animal health. Inevitably, a great deal of attention will be focused on foot and mouth, but we must think ahead as well. We need adequate contingency plans for a range of exotic diseases, some of which may represent an increased threat because of changes in climate and the spread of insect vectors, for example. The Bill is designed to cope with that and give us the flexibility that we will need in future.

Angela Browning: I am grateful to the Minister, and apologise for the fact that I was not present when he started speaking. Does he recall that he told us in Committee:
	XI want to make it clear to the Committee that vaccinate and slaughter is not an option that I personally support"—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 4 December 2001; col. 171.]
	and went on to explain how he preferred the option of vaccinating animals so that they could continue to live? Is that still his view, and will it influence the outcome of the consultations to which he referred?

Elliot Morley: The hon. Lady played a prominent part in Committee and she is welcome to intervene. The Secretary of State made it clear in her statement today that, generally speaking, if we are going to use emergency vaccination our preference would be a vaccinate-to-live policy. There may be circumstances in which a vaccinate-to-kill-later policy was necessary. That is dealt with in the Bill in relation to compensation, for example, and we accepted some amendments on that. However, I can confirm categorically to the hon. Lady that our preference is for a policy of vaccinate to live.
	I have made it clear why we cannot accept the point made in the Liberal Democrat amendments. However, I am sure that we are not very far apart in our reasoning. We have given an important commitment and I hope that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) will accept that.
	We accept Lords amendment No. 3, which deals with the use of the word Ximmaterial". We are happy to accept the clarification that it provides. The provision in question enables the Secretary of State, where it is necessary to do so, to use a power to limit the spread of an outbreak and deal with it quickly. Our aim will be to use that power where we believe that it would reduce the total number—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the Minister that the Lords amendment to which he is speaking is in a separate group. At the moment, we are discussing Lords amendment No. 1, Government motion to disagree thereto and Government amendment (a) in lieu, and sub-amendment (i).

Elliot Morley: Thank you for that guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am used to dealing with amendments together in Committee and on Report. I do have much more to add.

Eric Martlew: I think that I was the only Labour Back Bencher who spoke in favour of the Bill on Second Reading. One of the reasons why I contributed was that it was vague as to whether the Government had the right compulsorily to vaccinate. Does the Bill before us clear that issue up?

Elliot Morley: The Bill makes the situation clear: the right to vaccinate always existed under the Animal Health Act 1981, but the Bill makes it easier to apply vaccination, as well as culling and serology, more quickly and efficiently.
	There has been much concentration on the Bill in terms of culling—we had the same discussion in Committee—but the issues remain the same. The Bill does not focus entirely on culling. It is designed also to give the powers necessary for speedy entry into and application of vaccination and serology. Those powers are equally important in any application of disease control measures. Indeed, the different emphasis might mean that they become more important, which is a very strong argument for the Bill.

Andrew George: I seek the Minister's advice on the consumption of vaccinated meat. What assessment has his Department and the Food Standards Agency made of that issue? Is the Department clear about how much, if any, vaccinated meat is coming into the country?

Elliot Morley: We are certainly aware that some vaccinated meat is coming into the country, but vaccines are used in the livestock industry for all sorts of things. As is made clear in the Government's formal written response to the independent inquiries, we certainly believe that there is no reason why vaccinated meat, in this case in relation to foot and mouth disease, should not be placed on the market. There is no safety reason why that should not happen.
	I ask the House to disagree with the amendment, but I hope that it will accept that we have recognised the arguments behind it and tried to give some reassurance by allowing in the Bill for the fact that the issue of vaccination will certainly be considered more prominently in future, along with a range of options, bearing in mind the proper scientific and veterinary advice and the fact that there are still some issues to resolve before we can successfully use it on a large scale.

James Gray: I welcome the fact that the Minister has been ready to listen to all the discussions that occurred in Committee, in the House and during the progress of the Bill in the other place. His tabling of an amendment in lieu of the Lords amendment demonstrates that the Government are ready to listen. I understand the Minister's confusion about speaking to the other groups of amendments, but in those, too, the Government have demonstrated that they are ready to listen to the arguments that have been put forward here, in Committee and, particularly, in the other place, by granting a number of concessions on some of the important matters that were raised.
	I understand much of what the Minister said about Lords amendment No. 1. None the less, we shall argue the case in favour of the amendment. The first groups of amendments—including those relating to slaughter, to which the Minister referred a moment ago—bring us to the heart of all that we found wrong with the Bill when it left the House of Commons. Its name is the Animal Health Bill, but as my noble Friend Baroness Byford so memorably said on Second Reading, it would have been better to call it the XAnimal Death Bill".
	The Bill was originally introduced to allow the Government to kill animals, whether or not there was a real need to do so and whether or not farmers were prepared to allow it to happen, and to give those farmers unfair compensation for the cull once it had happened. The groups of amendments in this first, one-and-a-half hour debate are designed to correct the Bill's asymmetrical imbalance in favour of death, and to create a Bill that is, wherever possible, in favour of life—a true Animal Health Bill. This remains a bad Bill, but, thanks to these amendments and to the others that we shall debate later, it is a slightly less bad Bill than it was when it left here. We therefore welcome the Government's readiness to accept their Lordships' amendments, which, if time allows, we shall debate later.
	The amendments in the first group relate to the vaccinate-to-live policy. Rather than accepting them, the Government are seeking to water them down. The Minister justified that by suggesting that, under EU law, vaccination on farms that had epidemiological connections with farms that were being culled out could not be allowed. I am certain that that is true, and I would not for a second question the Minister's understanding of EU law; I am sure that he is a great expert on it. However, many of the contiguous culls that took place during the crisis two years ago did not involve farms that were epidemiologically connected with farms being culled out. Rather, those farms simply happened to be next door to them. According to my understanding of the matter—I am ready to be corrected—EU law would allow vaccination on neighbouring farms.
	What animal lover could have failed to be affected by the devastating images of the pyres of perfectly healthy animals, just two years ago? Who would not wish to find a way of avoiding that happening again? The unamended Lords amendment offers a means of doing exactly that. The Royal Society's report, which was published in July and to which the Government have rushed out their response today, acknowledges that fact. I remind the House that the report states:
	XIt is clear that the long-term solution is to develop a vaccine against FMD (and other diseases such as classical swine fever) that confers lifelong sterile immunity against all strains of the virus. An international research effort is required to develop such a vaccine."
	On short-term planning, it states:
	XGiven recent advances in vaccine science and improved trading regulations, emergency vaccines should now be considered as part of the control strategy from the start of any outbreak of FMD. This means 'vaccination to live' rather than vaccination to prevent spread and then culling."
	The Royal Society is, therefore, perfectly clear on the matter. In the National Farmers' Union's response to that report, its president, Mr. Ben Gill, said:
	XThe NFU supports the report's recommendation that emergency vaccination should be considered as an option alongside the slaughter of infected animals and dangerous contacts as part of an overall control strategy during any future FMD outbreak."
	The Royal Society, the Follett report and the NFU support the principle of vaccination becoming part of the hierarchy of weapons at the Secretary of State's disposal in the event of another outbreak.
	It might be informative to glance at the way in which Uruguay tackled foot and mouth disease in 2001, to see what can be done using vaccination without subsequent slaughter. Uruguay vaccinated 10 million cattle and eradicated the disease within 15 weeks. Only 7,000 animals were slaughtered, compared with the millions that were culled here, and the human impact was therefore absolutely minimal. The Minister might be keen to hear that the total cost to the Uruguay Government—vaccines, disinfection and compensation to farmers—totalled some $13.6 million, which is a tiny amount compared with what we had to spend here. So, there is a huge amount to be said for vaccination.
	Of course I accept that scientists have begun to understand some of the questions surrounding the effectiveness of vaccination only in the past few months. For that reason, I pay particular tribute to Cross-Bencher Lord Moran, whose determined efforts ensured that the Bill's over-hasty progress through the other place was delayed so that it could be informed by the Royal Society and other reports as well as by those scientific advances. It is curious to think back to the Minister and his colleagues in the other place arguing that the Bill must go through terribly quickly as it was terribly important. Here we are, discussing their response to the Royal Society report on the same day as we consider Lords amendments to the Bill.

Eric Martlew: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his party opposed the Royal Society report and wanted a public inquiry, whose results we would not have had for at least three years?

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman is not quite right. We were certainly not opposed to the Royal Society report or the Follett report. We would indeed have welcomed a public inquiry in addition to the Royal Society report, although we understand that the Government did not want that—plainly, it would have been extremely embarrassing for them—and that they used their self-defence mechanism to avoid such an inquiry. However, to suggest that a public inquiry was an alternative to the Royal Society report is quite wrong.
	It is curious to think of the Government trying to rush the Bill through the House and the other place, despite the fact that they knew that these two vital reports were due in the summer. The Government wanted the Bill to become law in advance of the reports becoming known.

Elliot Morley: rose—

James Gray: The Minister wants to correct me.

Elliot Morley: Hindsight is a wonderful thing. When we introduced the Bill, the epidemic had only recently stopped. In all honesty, many people, including us, thought it likely that there would be further outbreaks, and it was important that we had a range of measures to deal with that. Of course, one can never tell when an outbreak might occur. I am glad that there have been no further outbreaks, but we cannot be complacent. I have to say, however, that the hon. Gentleman sounds very complacent.

James Gray: I am astonished to hear the Minister suggest that my remarks are complacent. I would like to think that his Department had contingency plans in place and that, had there been another small outbreak during that period, it could have dealt with that a great deal more effectively than last time, which was an absolute shambles. Let us hope that the Department has learned a few lessons without any new legislation. I am also astonished that he thought it very likely that there would be more outbreaks. I heard no public announcement from the Department that further outbreaks were very likely, but the Minister has now said that.

Paul Flynn: rose—

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman is keen to intervene.

Paul Flynn: The disease was contained in Uruguay, France, the Netherlands and Ireland, but not here. That was because of the excessive number of animal movements following the first infection. More than 1 million animals were exposed, as animals travelled to at least six markets. Is it not vital that the Bill is passed as quickly as possible, so that the farming industry is protected not just from another foot and mouth outbreak, but from the possible outbreak of many other diseases such as blue tongue virus, vesicular stomatitis and swine vesicular disease? The limitations on animal movements are crucial.

James Gray: I entirely sympathise with the point about animal movements, and I think that Members on both sides of the House would seek always to restrict animal movements as much as possible, and find ways to use local abattoirs and to sell meat locally, but the truth is that the large buyers of meat buy from across the nation. Of course, a religious cull for certain purposes was the biggest single reason for the movement of elderly ewes that occurred immediately before the main outbreak.
	I have heard the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Murphy) several times on the issue. Of course we agree—[Interruption.] Halal meat is the answer. Most of the old ewes that were brought down to Devon from the north were used for halal meat in Birmingham. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) is making squeaking noises from a sedentary position, but halal meat was the main reason.
	If I may, I shall return to the main point of today's discussion—Lords amendment No. 1, which has the specific purpose of dealing with vaccination. It would not be right for me to allow hon. Members to ramble on about other matters, as it is important to focus on the particular issue. I was making the point that the Government tried to rush the Bill through the House—it was introduced to this place 12 months ago—and that I am glad of the delay, which has allowed us to consider the outcome of the two reports. The science on vaccination is developing all the time.
	For example, tests to differentiate between vaccinated animals and those that are infected are now fully available to us. That allowed the OIE—the Office Internationale d'Epizootic—to reduce the time for a return to disease-free status from 12 months to six. It happened very recently, and it allowed the EU temporary committee's draft report in September to advocate emergency vaccination as a tool of first resort.
	I presume that the EU foot and mouth disease directive, due to be published shortly, will also endorse emergency vaccination as the primary means of control, but if there is no similar presumption in favour of vaccination in the United Kingdom we will be at an immediate competitive disadvantage compared with EU countries where vaccination is preferred. Both the EU report and the directive will doubtless recognise the advances and validation of NSP-free vaccines and the differential tests, and make provision to deal with FMD in line with the new OIE ruling. As the Minister has acknowledged, and as was acknowledged in the earlier statement, the Department is also moving towards being broadly in favour of a degree of vaccination. I welcome that.
	We all accept that there are potential problems with vaccination. An obvious practical difficulty with mass vaccination is the large number of animals involved. The views of the international community, especially on meat exports from a vaccinated country, need further clarification and will doubtless also need further negotiation. At present, vaccination cannot be carried out very easily, which is a great worry. We must ensure that we preserve our disease-free status and the ability to export around the world.
	As the Royal Society report notes, the effectiveness and durability of vaccines require much more work. The costs associated with mass vaccination should also be considered, although they are nothing in comparison with the costs of an extensive cull. I accept that there are downsides to vaccination, but at least the amendment offers the Government the opportunity to use it in the event of another outbreak.
	The Minister seemed to suggest that the amendment would require the Government to use vaccination. It does not; it merely requires them to make it a priority—to put it at the top of their tree. Of course a contiguous cull would still be allowed. What we are saying is that, whereas in the old days the cull was the presumption, we want vaccination—at the very least, ring-fenced vaccination—to become the presumption.
	Problems would be involved in moving to the next stage and making vaccination a more permanent prophylactic, but it should not be beyond the wit of man or the expertise of science to demonstrate to the world that vaccinating to live guarantees a disease-free herd. It is possible to differentiate between animals carrying antibodies as a result of infection and those carrying them as result of vaccination. I personally have been vaccinated against yellow fever, smallpox, measles and, no doubt, a variety of other diseases. That does not make me a global health pariah; on the contrary, it allows me to travel abroad with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union and other such useful organisations. Surely the same principle can apply to vaccinated animals.
	Moreover, as the Minister mentioned, the meat that we eat today comes from animals that have been vaccinated against all kinds of disease. The notion of vaccination is not necessarily a bad thing. The Food Safety Agency could quite reasonably reach an early conclusion on whether FMD-vaccinated beef is as good as non-vaccinated beef.
	We believe that vaccination against FMD, both as a firebreak and potentially, in the longer term, as a more general prophylactic, has real possibilities for the future, although we accept that more work is needed on many aspects. The Lords amendment moves our thinking towards vaccination and away from slaughter in a way that we do not think is achieved by the Government's much weaker amendment to it. We are glad that the Government have moved some way in our direction, but we are disappointed that they cannot accept the Lords amendment. We believe that it truly changes an animal death Bill into what we all want it to be, an animal health Bill.

Eric Martlew: It is a year since I spoke in the Second Reading debate. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) keeps talking about the outbreak being two years ago, but I remind the House that the week before we introduced the Bill a flock of sheep was killed in south Cumbria on suspicion of being infected, and that was just over a year ago. We must not forget how devastating the outbreak was—the millions of animals that were killed, the devastation on the farms, the crippling of the tourist industry in many parts of the country and the fact that we spent billions of pounds that could have been spent elsewhere. I am sure that we can all think of how we could have spent the money. To prove how serious it was, we should remember that the general election was postponed because of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. So the politics of having another outbreak have to be taken into consideration.
	In Cumbria, I was right in the middle of the argument about vaccination. The farmers were in favour of vaccination, but the National Farmers Union and the food industry were against it. The milk factory where I worked for 20 years was threatened with closure if we vaccinated. I do not accept the idea that if we have another outbreak and introduce a policy of vaccinate to live, we will not have these arguments again. We will still have a problem with the food industry as it will be frightened that consumers will be turned off a particular product if we have a policy of vaccinate to live.
	A policy of vaccinate to kill is absolute nonsense. In December, the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee and I attended a conference in Brussels and listened to the Dutch agriculture Minister, who was still shell-shocked by the anger of the people of Holland having found out that 750,000 pigs there had been vaccinated and then all killed. The idea that we should have a policy of vaccinate to kill is nonsensical. An emergency policy of vaccinate to live still raises great worries, as we will have the same arguments with the farmers and the food industry. The way to go is to introduce routine vaccination that becomes part of the culture of farming, rather than being introduced in a crisis. The consumers will accept it. It must be a Europe-wide policy. In animal welfare terms, the benefits will be tremendous, but the spin off to other industries, including the tourist industries, of knowing that we can never go back to the devastation of last year will also be valuable.
	When I intervened on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State during her statement, she gave me some assurance that the matter was being looked at, but if European Governments do not show real commitment to routine vaccination, industry will not spend billions of pounds on developing a vaccine, particularly if EU politics are not committed to using it.
	We need guidance from the Government. I believe that a vaccine is not far away. When the Select Committee questioned members of the Follett committee, they expressed the same view. I remind the Minister that Britain persuaded the rest of the EU to stop the routine vaccination of animals, so it was done in the past.
	I believe that false information has been disseminated about carrying animals. There is no evidence that an animal that has had the disease and recovered passes that disease on to other animals. If we look at the history of foot and mouth disease in this country, some animals who had had the disease must have escaped the cull and survived, but fortunately we have had no more outbreaks this year. I supported the Bill on Second Reading because it gave us the option of vaccination. I was quite impressed by the response from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I would warn the Minister that the idea that in a crisis we can introduce a policy of vaccination to live will be fraught with the same dangers that we faced last time.

David Curry: I understand the reasons why the Government introduced a Bill so rapidly after the epidemic, but it had a very punitive air, and its measures were draconian. The pause has helped, and it is now much more balanced. On vaccination, the Government have got the balance about right. The other place has gone too far—it has run a little ahead of the science. We must ensure that the Government retain the flexibility to apply measures appropriate to particular circumstances—probably a range of measures—without necessarily being predisposed towards a particular set of measures.
	As far as vaccination is concerned, there are three crucial factors. First, we must have a vaccine that is polyvalent—that can deal with all the strains of foot and mouth disease. Secondly, there should be a field test to distinguish vaccinated animals from those that are genuinely infected. In the circumstances of an outbreak, there is no point in sending samples to laboratories and having to wait three days or so for the results. Finally, there is the requirement that international trade rules should deliver the acceptability of vaccinated product and, indeed, that the various people in the industry should accept it.
	Interestingly, in Holland—the Dutch experience did involve vaccination—all vaccinated animal product was destroyed: none of it went into the food chain. The National Farmers Union may have had concerns about vaccination and the possibility of a two-tier market opening up, but as the Minister said, the food industry also had hesitations about the acceptability of vaccinated product. It is all very well saying that all animals have been vaccinated and various steps have been taken—we know that that is so—but as certain other episodes have shown, consumer reaction does not necessarily follow what we would describe as logic. It is entirely for consumers to decide what they wish to buy.

David Drew: As always, the right hon. Gentleman talks eminent good sense. Does he accept that one problem with having a vaccination policy in the midst of an outbreak is that, in effect, there would not be one policy? One might well choose ring-vaccination, but to ensure the most effective policy—and to ensure that animals were being vaccinated to live—it would almost certainly have to be linked to the prophylactic vaccination of virtually all other stock. What are the right hon. Gentleman's views on mixing policies during an outbreak?

David Curry: There would inevitably be a mix. A great deal depends on how rapidly one gets to an outbreak before significant movement occurs. If such movement does occur, a vaccination strategy becomes difficult to apply because of the sheer problems of tracing. I am very doubtful about prophylactic vaccination. There have been instances right across the uplands of trying to count animals for the purpose of making claims on the support systems. It is very difficult indeed to get hold of every single sheep, so the answer is, XFirst, find your sheep." If it were felt that even just a handful of animals had not been caught by prophylactic vaccination, significant difficulties would arise in terms of regulation and marketing.
	Why does not the Minister ask Sir Brian Follett to keep a watching brief on this issue? Why is not Sir Brian asked to make an annual report to the Department, and to Parliament, on where the science has taken us? The Department could then add an annexe, stating the policy implications of where we are in terms of vaccines. Very few Members are scientists, and we need someone to translate the science into sensible terms. Sir Brian did an outstanding job in the report; he has credibility, and he would be a good person to take on that task. That, combined with the policy implications and comments from the Food Standards Agency, would be an example of the joined-up government of which we hear a great deal, but see a good deal less.
	The Liberal Democrat amendment adds a little in declamatory terms, but absolutely nothing of substance, and I hope that they will not press it to a vote. The sensible thing is for the House to accept the amendment as formulated by the Government—it strikes a sensible balance according to the current state of our knowledge—provided that they set in motion the machinery to ensure regular updating of knowledge, and that they draw the conclusions publicly, for us all to see.

Andrew George: I suppose that I should move amendment (i) in the name of my right hon. Friends and myself.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may speak to the amendment; it will be moved formally later.

Andrew George: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for clarifying the issue, and I apologise for being out of order.
	I welcome the efforts made by their lordships in amending the Bill. Some significant and comprehensive work was done in Committee and on Report in the House of Lords, and the Bill, as amended, is considerably better than when the Commons sent it to their lordships. I welcome the opportunity for their lordships to demonstrate that they can be an effective revising Chamber.
	I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted some of the amendments originally tabled by my noble Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches in the House of Lords—for example, that on an annual report in respect of meat imports and the related regulations and surveillance. I also welcome the fact that the Government have shifted their position and are prepared to open their eyes to the opportunity of introducing an amendment that would at least allow a vaccination policy to be used if an outbreak occurs in future.
	However, perhaps harping back to today's statement, some lessons should be learned, one of which is that the Government should not attempt to rush through such Bills and that they must provide themselves with a greater opportunity to request reports, such as the two on which we have just considered the Government response, before introducing legislation.

Roger Williams: Does my hon. Friend agree that if ever a Bill would have benefited from pre-legislative scrutiny, this was it?

Andrew George: Absolutely. Although the Select Committee considered aspects of the foot and mouth outbreak and proposals in the Bill, the fact is that a number of important factors were not taken into account. The Bill has benefited from the delay as a result of considering the Anderson and Follett reports, and even the Government could not deny that. Among the lessons that need to be learned generally is the fact the Government need to reflect on the way in which they treat the industry. It is fundamentally important that the Government recognise that they must build a climate of trust between themselves and the industry in any future legislation or action that they take in relation to any future outbreak. What worries me about several of the Government's proposals is that the Bill is based on a lack of trust and forcing the Government's will on farmers.
	I welcome the Minister's statement at the commencement of the debate that he is not against the general principle of our amendment, although he did not go on to argue specifically against the practice of our amendment. Is it a question of priority, or does he accept the principle that a vaccinate-to-live policy should be applied wherever possible and that wholesale farm slaughter should be used as a policy of last resort? If he fundamentally agrees with the principle that that policy should be applied, why will he not agree to its inclusion in the Bill? He did not answer that question.

Elliot Morley: rose—

Andrew George: I will happily give way to the Minister—perhaps he will have an answer.

Elliot Morley: First, amendment No. 1 is unnecessary, as the Government have tabled amendments to respond to the problem. Secondly, it states that vaccination should be the option of first resort, but EU law covering infected premises and dangerous contacts places on us an obligation to slaughter. The amendment is therefore technically flawed. It would enable a person to mount a legal challenge against the Government for implementing normal disease control methods.

Andrew George: I am grateful for that clarification. However, the amendment would not undermine the Government's ability to demonstrate that they had looked at a vaccinate-to-live policy properly. Government amendment (a) in lieu states that the Secretary of State
	Xmust consider whether in relation to the occurrence treating animals with serum or vaccine is more appropriate".
	The Secretary of State might consider that problem, but dismiss very quickly employing treatment with serum or vaccine. That decision cannot be challenged at present. The aim of the amendment is to require the Government to be more specific. Despite claims to the contrary, it does not commit the Government to a vaccinate-to-live policy. It would require the Government to make every effort to ensure that the option had been considered properly. It would also require them to be able to show that they had considered the matter before another approach was adopted.

David Drew: Who would decide whether the Government had made an appropriate evaluation of a vaccination or serum policy? Would it be the courts, or would an independent agency be established to make that adjudication? I am genuinely confused about how the proposal would work.

Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. If he accepts the principle behind the amendment, his question suggests that he thinks that the Bill should be further amended to clarify the way in which the decision would be made. There are many opportunities for Parliament in that respect. If the Secretary of State had to demonstrate that proper consideration had been given to a vaccinate-to-live policy, it would be possible for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee, for example, to give that decision proper scrutiny. Without that safeguard, the decisions could be made behind closed doors. We know that it is possible that the decision to use a slaughter policy rather than a vaccination policy could be made on the basis of what is convenient for the Department. The reasons for such a decision could be extraneous and not based on principle.

Eric Martlew: Both of the reports that the House discussed earlier today accuse the Government of having a slow decision-making process, and identified it as a major problem in the most recent foot and mouth outbreak. The amendment would slow that process even further. Why change the Bill in a way that would make sure that that fault is still present when the next outbreak comes along?

Andrew George: I do not believe that the requirement to demonstrate that the Secretary of State has properly considered implementing a vaccinate-to-live policy would slow decision making. The Minister said that he agrees with the proposal in principle, but the hon. Gentleman implies that the Secretary of State should be given a way not to give proper consideration to the policy—he would not have to give full consideration to all the implications of the decision that is eventually made.
	I cannot see how it will in practice delay the process, but it may result in better outcomes. Rather than arguing that it may delay a worse outcome, surely it would be better to allow for a proper process that might result in a better outcome with better and quicker control of the disease.

David Curry: Is not the truth that the hon. Gentleman's amendment will not make the blindest bit of difference? There is no way for him to know the nature of the consideration that the Minister has given. In any foreseeable circumstances, it is inconceivable that a Minister would take a decision to slaughter without considering the alternatives, given the sort of public disquiet that that would inevitably raise. I am afraid that although the hon. Gentleman's amendment has a jolly political purpose, it has no practical or political substance at all.

Andrew George: The right hon. Gentleman says that it is inconceivable for Ministers to conclude that it would be better to use a slaughter policy rather than vaccinate if they have properly considered the issue, but during the last outbreak it was conceivable. One of the concerns throughout the outbreak and a reason why a lot of the processes were delayed was that many farmers did not feel that they had been properly represented or that the Government were on their side. It became conceivable that decisions were taken for reasons that were not directed towards the best possible outcome. If we want better and quicker outcomes in any future outbreak, we need transparency in the way in which Government processes work and the decision-making process operates.
	The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) rightly spoke about the impact on the retailing of vaccinated meat. No doubt next time that will be a matter for consideration.
	This debate has given us an opportunity to bring forward some excellent proposals, such as the one put forward by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) for an annual report to be made to Parliament and DEFRA on progress to identify a vaccine. I would be interested in the Under-Secretary's response to that proposal because I hope that we could take it forward.
	I do not want to detain the House unnecessarily on this matter; I am sure that I have spoken for far too long and I know that many others wish to speak. However, Liberal Democrat Members believe that it is important to be more explicit in the Bill and to be clear that there is a decision-making stream. If the Under-Secretary agrees with the principle of the amendment, it should feature in the Bill.

Peter Atkinson: May I give some support to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) in supporting the amendment from the other place? I think that we would all like to support it, because it is the ideal for which we strive. Sadly, however, I have to side with my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) in challenging the practicality of the Lords amendment. The Government's amendment is a reasonable compromise between what we would like and what we can work with in practice, so I hope that my hon. Friend does not push this to a Division. If he does, I might be in a different Lobby from him, and that is rather a dangerous occupation for a Conservative Member of Parliament at present.
	I am no great expert on the intricacies of vaccination, but the farming community would face difficulties if a system of prophylactic vaccination were introduced. As we have heard, it is virtually impossible—indeed, it is impossible—to ensure that all stock is collected and vaccinated. It is estimated that there are 30 million sheep in the United Kingdom, with 3 million or 4 million in my constituency. Even in normal circumstances it is virtually impossible to get all the sheep down from the fields for dipping.
	During the foot and mouth culling, I attended a number of culls, including one on some large open-range farms where several thousand ewes were slaughtered over a couple of days. Not a single ewe or lamb was left on the hills, but the next day another hundred came out of hiding to see where their colleagues had gone. It is sadly impossible to guarantee that all stock is slaughtered.

Eric Martlew: I understand the hon. Gentleman's train of thought, but if the vast of majority of the flock is immunised we will not have a major outbreak, will we?

Peter Atkinson: I am advised that that is not the case. I have been told that if a single animal is not vaccinated, it could travel through the firebreak and spread infection. We were talking about the Dutch experience—there were three quarters of a million pigs in one unit, so there was no problem getting to them and vaccinating them. The situation with sheep and hill cattle is very different. Hill cattle are extremely wild and are hard to round up, as we discovered during the foot and mouth cull. Wild deer are common in many parts of the United Kingdom now, and are potential carriers of foot and mouth—the Minister will threaten me if I am wrong—and there is no point having a prophylactic vaccination system if a large section of the animal population is not vaccinated.

Eric Martlew: The reality is that we did not kill all the wild deer after the last outbreak, but we have not had any further outbreaks.

Peter Atkinson: I accept that. I do not know the risks of foot and mouth being transmitted to the wild deer population, but in a fail-safe vaccination system we must consider the chance of wild animals moving within a vaccinated animal community. That possibility has not been properly addressed.
	I understand the hon. Gentleman's desire to avoid the unpleasant scenes that he and I witnessed at first hand, but that is a distant eventuality. We may one day achieve it, but in the meantime the Government amendment is the most practical compromise.

Angela Browning: Another aspect of the problem was touched on in Committee, but we did not get a definitive answer from the Minister. Any vaccination policy must deal with the question of the right to enter premises to enforce vaccination. That power needs to be looked at carefully.

Elliot Morley: It is in the Bill.

Angela Browning: I believe that the Minister is trying to help me, as he is usually helpful. However, a policy of prophylactic vaccination raises the question whether or not the Government will enforce it.

Peter Atkinson: I agree entirely. How would we ensure that all animals were vaccinated? It would not be practical to test them to see whether a farmer was telling the truth. It would be pretty easy, however, for him to claim that all his animals were vaccinated, but not vaccinate them.

Bill Wiggin: I am afraid that my intervention will not be particularly helpful for my hon. Friend, but it is possible to vaccinate with a bolus that can be traced, so there is accountability.

Peter Atkinson: I am sure that my hon. Friend is correct, but I mentioned that there were 30 million sheep in the UK, so he will recognise the size of the problem. Obviously, if a farmer was suspected of not vaccinating his flock, that could be checked. My hon. Friend surely cannot be considering random tests in a national flock of that size.
	Will the Minister consider vaccination for rare breeds and species? There is certainly a case for prophylactic vaccination of herds of wild cattle, such as the Chillingham cattle in Northumberland, as their meat will never enter the food chain.
	I have to say, reluctantly, that their lordships' amendments are too ambitious and that the compromise that we have been asked to support is correct.

Bill Wiggin: I am in a quandary because I hate to disagree with my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson). I welcome the Lords amendment to a part of the Bill that initially gave the Minister the right to slaughter anything he felt like slaughtering. Indeed, the Minister defended that admirably in Committee, despite our protestations. However, the current emphasis on Xvaccinate to live" is the right line to take. Vaccination is right. Unfortunately, the Government's amendment does not seem to put a strong emphasis on vaccination to live. Instead, they revert to previous arguments about what they would do to prevent the spread of disease. I have no objection to the Government wanting to prevent the spread of disease; that is entirely laudable and their right. However, they have missed the point of the Lords amendment: the vaccination policy puts the emphasis on the right to live.
	The provision would make a difference because the vaccinate-to-live policy would apply to animals that were not infected or that had not been in contact with infected animals. The Lords amendment is sensible and helpful. The Government's proposals fail to incorporate the laudable parts of the Lords amendment, which is a great shame. Last year, there was an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the state of Rio Grande du Sol in Brazil and all bovine animals in the region were vaccinated. Thirty days after completion of the programme, the European Commission lifted its previous ban on meat imports from the area.
	Vaccination is getting better and better. It is laudable and offers the right way forward. The Government's proposals miss the point of a helpful amendment from the other place. I hope that the Minister will stop living in the nightmare of the past and that he will grasp the potential for more and better vaccination to live.

David Drew: One point that has not yet been made is that one reason for keeping animals alive is to sell them. I am worried about whether there would be a market for vaccinated animals. As the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) pointed out, if we do not carry out prophylactic vaccination, there will be unvaccinated animals. Might not that problem undermine the proposal?

Bill Wiggin: That is not a problem. We face problems with vaccination in our own lives every day. I have a one-year-old daughter and I am going through the MMR vaccine dilemma. We all have to live with such things. We are constantly told that the technology is improving. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but there is no problem because foot and mouth disease would not pass into the food chain through vaccinated animals.
	I hope that the Minister will bear my comments in mind and that, if the technology exists, he will implement the positive sentiment that he expressed in his speech and that the Government will not retreat behind a policy of slaughtering to prevent the spread of disease when they could be vaccinating against a threat from abroad, even if there was no threat in this country.
	A vaccinate-to-live policy offers huge opportunities, and the Government are failing to grasp that helpful olive branch.

Elliot Morley: I welcome the hon. Members for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and for St. Ives (Andrew George) to their new roles and responsibilities for their respective parties. There have been some useful and thoughtful contributions to the debate. Several Members spoke with some authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) was a strong and consistent advocate of vaccination throughout the recent outbreak. Like many Members who spoke, he had firsthand experience of it. He pointed out that the Government's changing response was significant in dealing with some of the problems that arose during the outbreak, especially in Cumbria.
	One claim that has come up time and again is that the Bill is all about culling. It is not. My hon. Friend is right to point that out. During the last outbreak, a minority of people objected strongly to the contiguous cull and there were many appeals to the district veterinary manager, many hundreds of which were upheld, according to circumstances.
	If we moved to emergency vaccination, however, there would also be a minority of people who would not wave flags when they saw the vaccination teams coming down the road. A minority would vociferously resist vaccination for all sorts of reasons. My hon. Friend is right about that.

David Drew: As I pointed out earlier, I am worried about how far it will be possible or practical to build a consensus. The farming industry is so differentiated that some people will vaccinate come what may, while others will do everything possible to avoid vaccination. What strategy does my hon. Friend anticipate to cope with those different forces?

Elliot Morley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) referred to the disagreement about the vaccination strategy. That must be resolved both by addressing some of the technical issues that were raised by hon. Members and by engaging the food and livestock industries in the debate. Many of the problems can be resolved, but we must do so at present while we are developing animal health strategies and reviewing our contingency plans. We should deal with the issues in a cool and calculated way rather than in the middle of an epidemic.

Eric Martlew: Are those negotiations taking place? Are the Government talking to the NFU and the food industry? Have there been any discussions about compensation if the value of meat and milk from vaccinated animals is less than it would be from those that had not been vaccinated?

Elliot Morley: We are talking to industry groups about all the issues: We set up a stakeholder group that was active throughout the epidemic and successfully gave all interested parties in the livestock industry the opportunity to discuss the issues with Ministers, the chief vet and Government scientists. My hon. Friend's last point is difficult for the Government to address, not least because it has been agreed to use vaccination in a range of cases. There is no reason that the vaccinated product should not go into the food chain. That was certainly agreed by the Food Standards Agency during the outbreak.

Paul Flynn: Is not the objection to eating meat that has been subject to vaccination an irrational and unscientific one? The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said that he had had a bumper bundle of vaccines. The difference is that no one is planning to eat him; even in the Conservative party, cannibalism has been ruled out. However, there is a feeling that many shoppers might object. During the foot and mouth epidemic, the result of the virtual collapse of the flow of meat from British farms was that more meat, much of which had already been vaccinated, was sucked in from overseas? Will the Department campaign to ensure that the fear of vaccinated meat is removed?

Elliot Morley: My hon. Friend is right. It is ironic that when vaccination was being considered during the epidemic, some of the product that came into this country to make up the shortfall was vaccinated. Consumers are not concerned about vaccination as long as it has been demonstrated to be safe, and as long as bodies such as the Food Standards Agency have looked into it in some detail.

David Drew: Is my hon. Friend talking to the milk industry about the impact of vaccinating cattle for other diseases, as we may be faced with the same question in relation to bovine TB? Will he say something about that matter, as it will become an issue in addition to whether people eat the meat?

Elliot Morley: My hon. Friend is right. We are trying to develop a vaccine against TB and I hope that we make the breakthrough. We are committing resources to that and it is one of the criteria within the terms of reference of the independent scientific group. He is right that if we use vaccination, we must reassure people that its use is safe. That will be part of the vaccine development and I have no doubt that the issue will be addressed.

Bill Wiggin: At the moment, TB vaccine is about 60 per cent. effective. What target is he looking for before the vaccine is introduced? I believe that #60 million has gone into TB research, of which #1.6 million has gone into bovine TB. What will the target be?

Elliot Morley: The vaccine certainly will need to be a lot more effective but a considerable amount of work is yet to be done. Scientists are confident that it is possible to develop a vaccine for bovine TB. The difficulty is the time scale. However, a vaccine is our avowed objective and we are proceeding with it.
	The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said that balance was important in terms of vaccination. That is where amendment No. 1 from the other place and the Liberal Democrat amendment are flawed, as they restrict the Government and are open to arguments of interpretation. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) wondered who would interpret and decide on these matters, but his answer was a little vague. That is exactly where one can start to get into difficulties.
	I understood the point raised by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon about Sir Brian Follett. We have set up a scientific advisory group chaired by the Department's new chief scientist. That gives us an opportunity to bring in a range of opinions on taking things forward. There should be periodic reports on progress, as we want to be as open and transparent as possible.
	The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon and the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) are right that there are still issues to be resolved. The issue of vaccination is not simple and a range of criteria must be taken into account. They referred to hill sheep and the problem of getting them down and vaccinating them. There is also the risk of stress for the animals, which can have all sorts of problems.

Eric Martlew: I understand my hon. Friend's comment about fell sheep, but is it not Government policy to tag them? Will we not have to keep a record of them? The animals will suffer stress then; I do not understand the difference.

Elliot Morley: I was talking about the practicality of vaccinating those sheep. All these issues can be addressed, but the Government are trying to strike a balance by recognising that there is an increased role for vaccination. We concede that there have been changes in technology that make the situation easier. Also, we recognise that there may be circumstances in which we want to use stamping-out policies as a first-strike response. By law, we have to do that with respect to infected premises and dangerous contacts.
	The Liberal Democrat amendment calls for a vaccinate-to-live policy to be taken into account as a first issue. There may be circumstances where, as part of a disease control strategy, we may want to use a vaccinate-and-kill policy. For example, there might be an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in an intensive pig unit. In such an outbreak, a considerable plume of virus will be downwind from the unit. There may be another unit, smack bang in that virus plume. That is more than a dangerous contact; it is almost certain that those pigs will develop the virus. That unit may have 10,000 or 20,000 pigs. In relation to disposal and humane culling, we want to control that outbreak. The best of way of doing that is to vaccinate the whole herd and then to cull in a controlled way. The amendment would take away that option.

Andrew George: The Under-Secretary has perhaps not read the amendment correctly. It does not discount that option. The fact that the amendment does not specifically list all of the options that might be considered does not mean that a vaccinate-to-kill policy cannot be pursued by the Secretary of State. On the question of to whom the evidence for the decision-making can be shown, I would regret any Department not wanting transparency in the decision-making process. Whether the evidence is shown or not, it is still open to legal challenge and the Secretary of State could still be challenged by a lawyer on behalf of a farmer.

Elliot Morley: We are open to legal challenge on a range of subjects at any time; that has cost a lot of people a lot of money in recent months and years. I do not dispute the reasonableness with which the hon. Gentleman has made his case, or that he genuinely recognises that there are circumstances in which we might want to take a different approach. However, once we start writing into legislation measures that we regard as flawed, we may find that there are many people who are not as reasonable or as helpful as who want him to challenge us.
	The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon and the hon. Member for Hexham recognised the balance that the Government are trying to strike by recognising that emergency vaccination has a role, but also that there may be a range of options and circumstances in which we take a different approach.
	I want to reassure the hon. Member for Hexham on rare breeds, of which Chillingham cattle is one. During the last outbreak, we sought and obtained permission to use vaccination for rare breeds and some rare zoo animals if the circumstances dictated that that should be the case. In relation to our detailed response to the Follett and the Anderson reports, we have made it clear that vaccination remains an option for breeds. If they are under threat, we can consider vaccination. However, use of vaccination in relation to disease control is a different issue.
	The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) made a very strong case for vaccination, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). I strongly disagree with him, however, in relation to his comments about Lords amendment No. 1, with which we cannot agree. As I have emphasised, it is not that we do not agree with the principle. The Government are showing that we recognise the change in circumstances and technology and are responding to the recommendations in the two reports on the basis of the amendment that we have tabled. That has been recognised by the hon. Member for Hexham, who has first-hand experience of the epidemic in his area, and by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, who is a former Minister and current Chairman of the Select Committee. I hope that the hon. Member for Leominster gives careful thought to their wise counsel.
	In relation to the amendment, we are trying to respond to the debate in Committee. I accept the comments of the hon. Member for St. Ives that we have moved a long way in relation to the original Bill. That reflects the reasonable points made by Members on both sides of the House, and the commitments that we gave in Committee and on Report that we would address them.

David Kidney: As my hon. Friend appreciates, I have been listening quietly to this debate. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) made the point about involving Sir Brian Follett in the future with follow-up reports. My hon. Friend said that the answer is the science committee that he has set up, and that he is all in favour of transparency. Clearly, however, this matter will develop over time, and there is an issue of public confidence for the future. Will he comment a little on what information we will receive in the guise of transparency, and what information the public will receive?

Elliot Morley: First, on the contingency plans, we are making them public and involving a range of stakeholders in the debate and the formulation of those plans. Secondly, in relation to the scientific group, which, as I mentioned, has been set up, we will want to keep in touch with Sir Brian and with Dr. Anderson on the way in which these issues develop. We are also committed to bringing forward and developing the animal health strategy, on which we are consulting with a range of groups. We want all of the documents to be living documents, as we will come back periodically to review and revise them, and to make sure that they address the relevant points for which they are designed. Some exercises and tests will be necessary in relation to the contingency arrangements, too.
	We therefore want to involve a range of experts, some of whom are outside the Department, in terms of their advice and involvement in the development of strategies and future plans. A huge amount of work is going on, and we propose to make public the progress on these issues and the time scales for reporting. That is also part of our commitment to transparency and openness.

David Kidney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. May I move the discussion on one stage further? One of his objections to the Lords amendment was that it could contravene European law. As we make discoveries, developments, explain matters, and develop policy, what would be the position in Europe? Would we be able to carry Europe with us in making similar changes?

Elliot Morley: I believe so. There has been a change in attitude from the EU and the Office Internationale d'Epizootic. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle joined me at the conference in Brussels that was co-sponsored by the UK and Holland to look at the whole issue of foot and mouth disease. The experience that we had in the last outbreak has changed the thinking in all countries; it has also changed the thinking in relation to the international organisation and the European Union. Incidentally, that change makes the vaccination options easier: it addresses some of the issues and problems that we came across in the course of the last epidemic.
	I hope that I have demonstrated that the Government have responded to the thrust of the arguments in terms of the role of vaccination, that the Lords amendment is flawed, and that we cannot accept it. I call on the House to support the Government.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
	The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 190.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.
	Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 12 agreed to [some with Special Entry].

New Clause

Lords amendment: No. 13, after clause 4, to insert the following new clause—20-day livestock movement restriction rule—
	XIn the 1981 Act the following subsection is inserted after section 8(1) (movement generally)—
	X(1A)In making an order under subsection (1) restricting the movement of animals in connection with an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, any restriction of 20 days or more shall lapse at the end of a period of 8 weeks following the last confirmed case.""

Elliot Morley: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 45 and Government amendments (a) and (b) thereto.

Elliot Morley: The Bill is important. It deals with crucial animal health issues. In light of that, I am sorry that the Lords made the amendment. No one disputes the fact that there are serious problems of movement control and stock movement. However, I emphasise that the 20-day standstill rules are supported by firm scientific and veterinary advice and represent the Government's current best view of an appropriate precautionary peacetime control. The main purpose of the Lords amendment is to protect against future outbreaks, rather than deal with the aftermath of past ones. That is one of a number of reasons why we strongly disagree with the amendment, which seems to imply that movement controls should be applied only in the course of an epidemic. That is not the way that the Government see it and it is not the way that the independent reports see it. Furthermore, it is not the way that the majority of those in the livestock industry see it—they recognise that there is a sound argument for movement controls.
	There is a legitimate debate about the extent of the controls and how they should be applied. In my experience, however, the vast majority of people in the livestock industry accept that there is a case for such controls as a routine measure to reduce the risk of disease.

Simon Thomas: I agree that the Lords amendment is flawed in that respect, but there is a principle behind it. The Minister mentioned the need for movement controls and, in principle, I agree. Does he accept, however, that the present 20-day rule is a restriction, not just a control? It is an overhang from the previous foot and mouth outbreak. Will he take this opportunity to give advance notice to the farming industry of how he sees that control system working? We cannot have a restriction that is so deadly, in particular to stock rearing and to the sheep industry?

Elliot Morley: I sat down with industry representatives during the summer to talk about the implications of the 20-day rule. The hon. Gentleman is right to the extent that that rule was strictly applied during the epidemic as a disease-control measure. However, the way in which it is being applied at present reflects changes that I agreed with the industry—a range of relaxations have been put in place and we have tried to strike a balance between my recognition of the industry's concerns and the detrimental impact that the rule can have on them, which I and the Department try to take into account, and the need to reduce the risk of disease spreading.
	A large percentage of the livestock industry can work within the rules that we have amended. Some sections of the industry may find it difficult to do so. We take those issues seriously. We want to examine them and we will do so in the light of the independent risk assessments, which will be published towards the end of the month. That will allow us to consider movement controls in time for the spring movement regime and to put whatever recommendations are made in place.

David Curry: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the problems with the controls and the way in which farmers see them is that, in practice, they seem leaky and contradictory? For example, I can buy sheep and put them in a field next to my neighbour's sheep, separated by a bit of wire fence, and I am stuck with them for 20 days, but he can sell his sheep on. Farmer Morley and Farmer Curry can take sheep to market and they can be in adjacent pens talking to each other. I can take Farmer Morley's sheep home but, because I have put them in quarantine, they are not caught by the 20-day rule. I cannot take my own sheep home without being caught by the rule. Those are the contradictions that bring the measure into disrepute. Those are the problems that the Minister has to solve if he is to get farmers to consent willingly to accept a measure that we all agree is necessary.

Elliot Morley: As always, the right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, although there is supposed to be a separation distance between the fields as part of the isolation conditions. I accept that there are anomalies that need to be addressed. It is a case of balancing the risk and of taking measures to reduce risk. Whatever the regime that is put in place, there are likely to be a few anomalies. We have to try to square those anomalies while achieving an adequate balance. The independent risk assessment from the Veterinary Laboratories Agency will help us to deal with that issue.

Paul Flynn: The report makes it clear that if a 20-day movement rule had been in place when foot and mouth came to this country, the disease would have been confined to a tiny area. There were only a few cases of airborne infection; the rest resulted from animal movements. There are about half a dozen deadly diseases that could come into the country at any moment. It would be too late to impose a movement ban once they had done so; we must have the ban in place now.

Elliot Morley: My hon. Friend is right. If we had had the 20-day rule in place when the incident took place in Heddon-on-the-Wall—the outbreak in the pigs there and the fact that it was not reported—the disease still would have spread, because of the two-week delay, but the consequences would not have been anywhere near as bad as they were as a result of the huge movement of sheep that took place. It is a question of trying to reduce the chances of that happening.
	There has to be some sort of movement control. The principle is not hugely controversial. A minority will always want to return to the situation before FMD. I have made clear that that is not an option. We are not going back to the situation before FMD. Many of the measures in the Bill—vaccination, compensation and a range of other issues—are a recognition that, after FMD, the situation has changed for ever and that we must try to minimise the impact of dreadful epidemics. I am not talking only about foot and mouth: we must be on our guard against other exotic diseases. The control of animal movements is one of the tools in our armoury. We must accept that.

Simon Thomas: The Minister is elaborating on the thoughts behind the present movement restrictions. Does he accept, nevertheless, that the millions of animal movements that took place prior to the outbreak were perfectly legal and reflected the market livestock at the time. There may be flaws in that market. Many of us want a market that is much closer to home—that will minimise the transport of meat, whether live or on the hoof. Nevertheless, that market was legal. If it is his view and that of the Curry report that we have to open up markets for farmers—if farmers are going to have to be more commercial, to sell their produce more directly—that must be squared with the right of farmers to move their livestock and get the best value out of it.

Elliot Morley: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman—the vast majority of those movements were legal and no criticism should be made of the people who were moving livestock because it was their legal right and they were not breaking any laws. On the periphery, there were concerns about traceability and out-of-ring sales—wider issues that need to be tackled. I am glad to say that we were successful in obtaining funding, in our bid in the 2002 spending review, to develop more sophisticated traceability and sheep-tagging systems. We want to move to electronic tagging and to develop that in conjunction with the industry. There is much support in the industry for that as well as for improving traceability. Those are all issues to which we must apply ourselves. That does not get us away from the fact, however, that the lessons learned inquiry recommended that the 20-day standstill should be retained while a wide-ranging cost-benefit analysis and a risk assessment was carried out, and that is what we are doing.
	I find it puzzling that although the other place suspended progress on this Bill to allow consideration of the independent reports, it ignored one of the key recommendations in the reports—the stop on movement. I emphasise that we are applying the 20-day standstill with variations and exceptions to recognise the needs of the industry, as an interim measure until we have the risk assessment and the cost-benefit analysis. When we have those, we will reconsider the issue and decide what is most appropriate in terms of risk of disease, taking into account the impact on the industry. We must presuppose, however, that there will still be a standstill period.

David Curry: Will the Minister spell out the timetables for the assessment and the possible responses? As he said, people understand that it is important to make sure there is no recurrence of the disease, and that it is important to deal with the conditions that may have contributed to the spread of the disease. However, the hon. Gentleman will equally appreciate that the movement of livestock is an integral part, especially of upland farming and breeding. If people feel that there is a programme of evaluation followed by policy responses, I am sure that they will accept circumstances more willingly than if they think they are just knocking their head against a back wall, while the sheep are sucking the pebbles dry.

Elliot Morley: I understand that point. I can give an assurance that we expect the risk assessment and the evaluations towards the end of this month. We will then hold public consultation on that, and consultation on any potential changes or recommendations that flow from that. I can also give an assurance that, whatever regime is put in place, the intention is to have it agreed in time for the spring movements in early spring next year. That is a clear timetable, which takes account of the needs of the livestock industry.
	As I said, I am surprised that Members in the other place have pre-empted the studies that are still going on and have gone against veterinary advice about the minimum proportionate movement restrictions. They have passed primary legislation which requires that a 20-day standstill would have to lapse eight weeks after the last confirmed case of an outbreak. Even if I thought that the measure was serious and proportionate—I appreciate that it gives an opportunity for a debate on the 20-day rule, and I understand why people may want to discuss that—the eight-week period does not make much sense to me. Eight weeks is not very long after the last known outbreak of a major epidemic. There could well be further risks, which could last beyond eight weeks. It is an arbitrary cut-off point, which we cannot accept.
	I accept on behalf of the Government that there need to be strict controls on movements during the outbreak, and that those will be different afterwards. I accept the reasoning behind that, and it is what we have done through the range of exceptions from the 20-day rule that have been progressively introduced during the year, which have relaxed the controls. Some veterinary advisers feel strongly that we have gone too far. Again, it is a question of balance, recognising and responding to the legitimate concerns and needs of the livestock industry, while following the best veterinary advice and minimising risk. We are reviewing the rules.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) that the amendment is not serious and does not belong to the Bill. It is certainly a vehicle for discussing the 20-day rule and we have no objection to debating the issues, because they are serious. However, the amendment is flawed and I ask the House to reject it.

John Hayes: I start by acknowledging that the Minister has made it clear that sensible people believe that in the case of a crisis such as the one that we endured during the foot and mouth epidemic, movement must be restricted. He is right to say that, with the exception of a very few people, the entire House and the whole industry would acknowledge that. The issue is for how long movement should be restricted.
	The 20-day rule was imposed to deal with what the Secretary of State described during her statement as the horror and tragedy of foot and mouth and with the problems that movement would have caused by exacerbating that crisis. The logic was that by preventing livestock from leaving a holding for 20 days after new animals had arrived on it, the disease would be confined to an individual farm, so the rule became part of the interim foot and mouth arrangements.
	Some 10 months after the last confirmed case, the industry recognises that the need for the rule must be debated again. We should not underestimate the effect that it is having on the livestock industry. Hon. Members in all parts of the House will have heard from farmers in their constituencies who are suffering because of the continuing imposition of the 20-day rule. The Minister said—revealingly, I thought—that had the 20-day rule been in place before the outbreak, its spread would not have been so great. That is a self-evident truth, but from that we surely cannot make the judgment that we should have as an on-going precaution for all time a 20-day rule, just in case there is an outbreak of foot and mouth or any of the other diseases to which it might apply.
	A restriction on movement cannot be a permanent precaution; it can only be a reaction to a problem that may arise when we hear about a confirmed case or outbreak of a significant disease. I would be very worried if the Minister were considering the imposition of such a rule as a permanent precaution against possible outbreaks. Perhaps he will intervene to reassure me.

Elliot Morley: I make it very clear that we are indeed considering permanent movement restrictions. Such restrictions are designed to deal not just with an epidemic, but with future animal disease risk. I do not think that the majority of the agriculture industry is against the idea of movement restrictions. People want to discuss measures that they consider to be proportionate and effective, and which take account of the other points that have been raised. I must make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that the Bill is about reducing risk for the future and protecting our livestock industry, following advice from our chief veterinary officer, our chief scientist and two independent inquiries. Is the hon. Gentleman saying, on behalf of the Conservative party, that he would ignore the advice from those bodies?

John Hayes: What I am saying on behalf of the Conservative party is that if the 20-day rule in its current form was allowed to continue in perpetuity—

Elliot Morley: I am not saying that.

John Hayes: I am glad that the Minister is not saying that. If the rule were allowed to continue in that form, the British livestock industry would be decimated. That is the simple fact of the matter. If the Minister does not believe me, perhaps he will listen to the National Farmers Union.

Paul Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Hayes: I shall quote from the NFU. I am sure that that will inform and inspire the hon. Gentleman's intervention and make it even more incisive and cogent than his interventions usually are.
	The NFU states—I am sure that this reflects the views of farmers with whom I have dealt around the country, and I am sure that it reflects the opinions expressed in the Minister's communications with farmers:
	XThe 20-day rule, which in nearly all cases restricts the movements of any of the animals on a farm once some animals have been brought on to the farm, is causing considerable practical difficulties for many farmers. Particular problems in the production of sheep are being experienced, given their natural breeding cycle. The unnecessary complexities of the restrictions and the adverse effects they are having on the running of farm businesses are profound."
	As I said at the outset, I do not pretend that we do not have to consider movement restrictions. We need a sensible balance. The Secretary of State said earlier that there must be a proportionate level of control and a balance between costs on industry and necessary precautions. Most of us would accept that.

Paul Flynn: The NFU is, not unexpectedly, as conservative as ever and refuses to accept change where change is essential. If the 20-day rule becomes permanent, why does not the hon. Gentleman encourage non-contact ways of marketing animals, which worked successfully during the foot and mouth epidemic? I refer to marketing through direct sales, video links and the internet, which not only reduces the risk of infection but reduces the suffering of animals by reducing the number of journeys.

John Hayes: That is a good point, but it would require massive change in the livestock industry. The hon. Gentleman is right that some change is taking place. There are new and more innovative ways of trading, but the idea that that could be switched on like a tap, and that suddenly the livestock industry can change the habits not just of a lifetime but of generations, many of which are embedded in local culture and local business practice, is fanciful. He is right to suggest that we should aim at such additional means of selling products. However, it will not happen tomorrow, and unless we do something quickly to ease the burden that the 20-day rule is placing on the industry, there will be much less of an industry to regulate. He would not want that to happen any more than I would; I know that he is a generous and intelligent man who shares many of my perspectives on these issues. He is right that we need to consider more innovative ways of dealing with these matters, but they cannot be used immediately, although we are faced now with a significant problem in the livestock industry, as is reflected in the comments of the NFU.

Peter Atkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Perhaps he can defend the NFU from the brickbats that have been travelling in its direction from Newport. I remind him of what the NFU said about the movement scheme:
	XWe have urged the development and introduction of a new permanent control regime to be introduced as early as possible."
	That is the NFU's view.

John Hayes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I said, there is widespread consensus about the need to be moderate and practical in these matters, but that consensus must strike the very balance that the Secretary of State identified in her statement between sensible precaution and the costs and burdens imposed on the industry. My suggestion to the House, which is reflected in the Lords amendments, is that that burden is currently falling too heavily on the industry.
	We have heard once again from the Minister that a detailed cost-benefit and risk-assessment analysis will be considered. We are aware of that, although it is not likely to be implemented until February. I understand from him and the Secretary of State that we are likely to know more about that later this month. That is good and healthy, but it will not please the industry or impress those who are currently struggling to maintain businesses, many of which are on the very edge commercially. We should not view this matter outside the context of the overall problems that farmers face. I do not need to remind the Minister or the House of how profound those difficulties are, especially in the less-favoured areas and among sheep farmers and some of the people represented by the hon. Members who are present in the Chamber. Those people will not receive well a conclusion to the deliberations that does not recognise that the existing regime is too punitive, costly, regulatory and burdensome for them.
	I should like to refer to a matter that has not been aired in detail so far this evening, although it may be as we continue. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said, in many cases the rigidity of the 20-day rule is encouraging abuse. Farmers face an unpalatable choice between breaking the 20-day rule and going out of business. That is not an acceptable choice for us as responsible Members of this House to impose on the industry.

David Drew: I concur with the hon. Gentleman. In answer to a written question, I was told that trading standards authorities have identified almost 2,000 cases of abuse. Of course, those involved in trading standards are themselves under pressure, so I suspect that there are more such cases. The crux of the matter is the need to separate the work of farmers from that of dealers. I have asked for that to happen throughout; if only it could be done. I know that some farmers are dealers, but not all dealers are farmers. Let us deal with the real problem. That is where the industry is at fault: it has failed to realise that the fault lay with those dealers who drove animals around the system spreading the disease and would do the same again, unless we do something about it. What does he have to say about that problem?

John Hayes: I am reminded of the comments made by Countess Mar in the other place, where she made a similar suggestion to that of the hon. Gentleman. I think that she used the phrase Xwheeler dealers" in referring to people with small pockets of land all over the place, whose regard for biosecurity is at best limited. He is right that we must recognise that, as well as the vast majority of dealers and farmers who are responsible, straightforward and honourable business men, there are always people who will try to get around the law and breach it to their advantage. We need to be mindful of that, as any responsible Government would be.
	When I speak of breaking the 20-day rule, however, I am speaking not especially about that minority, but about the perfectly reasonable and sensible farmers who are now obliged against their instincts and judgment to face up to either going out of business or breaking that rule. That is a matter of profound concern. Countess Mar—I remind the House that she is a Cross Bencher and not a Conservative peer—also said:
	XThere is plenty of anecdotal evidence that the 20-day standstill rule is being flouted, simply because it is unreasonable, unworkable and unenforceable."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 October 2002; Vol. 639, c. 1223.]
	I say to the Minister that, when that proper, independent study on cost benefit and risk assessment has been published, the resulting Government action must be based on those three factors; it must be reasonable, workable and enforceable. It must be bought by the industry.
	It is perhaps worth saying at this juncture that this whole debate has to be founded on the basis of a partnership between the industry and the Government. If we do not have such partnership when something as catastrophic as foot and mouth disease occurs, our job in controlling, containing and dealing with it will be all the more difficult. The Americans formed a national strategy—we will debate this matter later, so I will not test your patience too much, Mr. Deputy Speaker—to deal with such problems that is very much rooted in the sort of partnership-based and collaborative approach to which I referred. In a sense, the 20-day rule is relevant to those matters, as it is emblematic of the tensions that they involve.
	The Minister always speaks with authority, knowledge and conviction about these matters, but I disagree with him that we are examining an aspect of the Lords' consideration that is somehow exceptional. The 20-day rule is intrinsically linked to biosecurity, which we will debate in due course. However, I think that the separation of the 20-day rule and movement from biosecurity is rather artificial. I shall put it no more strongly than that. The issue needs to be seen as part of an integrated strategy to deal with the problems. If we had had a more cohesive and integrated strategy, it may well be that we could have handled foot and mouth more effectively. While Anderson certainly makes the point to which the Minister drew attention in respect of the 20-day rule, he also rightly expresses significant concern about the cohesiveness, coherence and integration of the strategy. Ministers should now acknowledge those concerns and I hope that they will bear them in mind in developing their national strategy.
	For me, that issue is at the very heart of the tension that I believe underlies the matters before us. The Lords have got it right in wanting to be more flexible in respect of the 20-day rule. In that respect, I draw the attention of the House to the situation in Scotland. Hon. Members will know that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon pointed out about a week ago when we debated agricultural matters, the 20-day rule is applied much more flexibly in Scotland.

Elliot Morley: It is the same.

John Hayes: The process by which one can obtain an exception in Scotland is more flexible. Incidentally, the Minister will be aware of the worry that, when we draw up a national contingency plan, there may be some need to make the Scottish experience rather less flexible in order to deliver a degree of consistency. Clearly, cross-border trade has to be taken into account in that regard. The border does not necessarily prevent animals from being moved across from England to Scotland, so there are issues of consistency involved in the traffic of livestock.
	The important thing is that the Scottish experience shows that exceptions can be implemented without significant risk. There is not much evidence that those risks have caused problems. The question must therefore be asked: if that can be done in Scotland, why can it not be done in England? Lord Plumb made that point when these matters were debated in the other place.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: My family farms in the borders of Scotland, and all our cattle go over the border to Berwick-upon-Tweed. We now find that much more difficult to arrange because of the difference between the two countries. We are only four miles over an open border. In fact, our land runs up to the border, so if the cattle get through the fence, they go into England. The whole position is, therefore, ambiguous, because if we want to get them back, we have to go through another system. Does that help my hon. Friend?

John Hayes: My hon. Friend speaks with the perspicacity and incisiveness for which he has become well known in the time that he has been here. He makes precisely the point that I was making about the need for a consistent policy across the two countries, given that normal business practice means that livestock will be transported between the two.
	It is worth saying a bit about the Scottish experience, because it is relevant to the amendments. Subject to the agreement of the Scottish Environment and Rural Affairs Department, farmers can get a separation authorisation for any animal. Their premises are not checked when the licence is issued, but there are spot checks, which represent a significant deterrent to those who might not be following the rules as carefully as they should be. The separation authorisation means that when brought-on animals are held separately from other animals on the farm, the 20-day standstill will apply only to those animals and not to any others. Additionally, when a farmer identifies animals to be moved off his farm and holds them separately from animals that have been brought on and mixed with other animals, those animals to be moved off will not be subject to the 20-day standstill.
	Those are important differences between Scotland and England, because they afford the flexibility that allows trading and dealing. Although I acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) that not all dealers are farmers, many farmers are dealers. I was in conversation with one such person in Nottinghamshire last week, who did precisely what my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) does, in moving animals between Scotland and England. He emphasised the difficulties that the inconsistency and the inflexibility of the 20-day rule caused for his business.
	It is important for us to learn from that experience. The Minister will know that, in England, it is possible to get such an exception only for individually identified breeding rams and bulls bought at market, or sale bulls and rams returning unsold from a market or sale, which are isolated. There is room for manoeuvre here by the Government. The House of Lords has identified that fact, in looking studiously and carefully at the matter. Some flexibility in the application of the quite proper restrictions on movement that the Minister has identified—the need for which responsible Members will acknowledge in the light of the crisis—needs to be taken into consideration. For that reason, I am sympathetic with the Lords, and—I know that this will come as a great blow to him—less sympathetic with the Minister.

David Drew: I do not want to speak for long on this matter, but this is the crux of how we proceed with the Bill. As someone who suffered, along with others, on the Bill when it was going through the Commons, I wonder whether I am experiencing déjà-vu, given that we started a year ago. Never let it be said that legislation is rapid in this place. Sometimes it is helpful to have the benefit of hindsight, and we now have the benefit of the hindsight of the Follett and Anderson reports. It needs to be put on record that those reports were, to a large extent, supportive of much of what the Government were trying to do.
	I think that there is room for compromise here, although my hon. Friend the Minister has said that, until we get the results of the cost-benefit analysis, the 20-day rule will remain in place. Inevitably, that will need to be reconsidered regularly. We can look at the causes of the foot and mouth outbreak and at who was to blame, but what made it such a major outbreak was that the animal movements had an effect similar to pouring petrol on a fire. They completely took away any ability to control the disease.
	My worry is that, unless we acknowledge two fundamental features of what went wrong and do something about them, that could happen again. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) said, it might not be foot and mouth next time; it could be blue tongue. Questions have also been asked about bovine tuberculosis. We face an epidemic of that in my part of the world, and I want to make a connection between those diseases, because the issues are not completely separate.
	There are two matters to which I want to draw the attention of the House. First, there were people who were either acting illegally or, at best, recklessly—as they had been doing day in, day out—because of the way in which the process encouraged them to perform their duties. I referred to dealers earlier. I used that as a fairly pejorative term, but I would not insult everyone by using it. What went wrong in relation to animal movements was that the dealers were driving the process rather than responding to it. I am not talking about a person who deals with 20 or 30 animals; I am talking about people who deal with thousands of animals.

Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman spoke of the dealers driving the process. I know what he is trying to say, but it is surely the supermarkets that are driving it. On the whole, the dealers are responding to a supermarket-set agenda when it comes to beef and sheep meat.

David Drew: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman, in that we have to acknowledge that the operation of the food chain is too centralised. I have long argued that we need to re-localise it, but people say that that option has now gone away from us and that we have to be realistic and realise that the chain is now fundamentally different.

Paul Flynn: Does my hon. Friend think it false of the Opposition to blame the Government and the supermarkets for all the problems of the farming industry? Is it not true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) said, that one group of animals bought by a farmer just before the foot and mouth epidemic was discovered, to his horror, to have been on 11 different holdings in the previous three months? That was all about fraud, and about maximising the number of payments made for those animals. That practice for sheep—bed and breakfasting, as it is called—was rife in the industry, and the 20-day rule is the answer to the problem.

David Drew: I cannot speak with the same knowledge as my hon. Friend, although I have made allegations about my own area. Farmers there have been very clear with me about where some of the blame—we are talking about a minority of people—needs to be laid in relation to the dreadful legacy of foot and mouth.
	My second point relates to that matter. We have created a monster that has now come back to haunt us, in that the subsidy regime encourages the movement of animals in a foolhardy way. At the moment, we have not dealt with that. We have to deal with the fact that people make money by operating this process—whether at the behest of the supermarkets or because of what the industry has become—and that they are being encouraged to do so by the subsidy regime, through bed and breakfasting or through the way in which the common agricultural policy encourages animal movements.

Bill Wiggin: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's argument. He has described farmers as reckless for moving sheep—those are his words—but now he suggests that the blame lies not with the farmers, but with the subsidy-driven system and the rules under which farming is governed, which contain loopholes that encourage people to benefit from sheep movements. Unfortunately, he cannot have it both ways. Not for one second do I believe that people who are moving sheep around the country are reckless; they are living with market forces. Does he really think that the Government cannot control how subsidies are paid, except through this Bill?

David Drew: I am not saying that at all, and the hon. Gentleman is doing my argument a disservice. In the main, I would call the people involved dealers, although some farmers are dealers, and the recklessness relates to the number of times that the animals are moved. I am also arguing that people are encouraged to do this by the subsidy regime that has been put in place. I would remove that subsidy regime tomorrow, but, unfortunately, that would have to go through European negotiations. Clearly, other parts of Europe undertake such movements more successfully in that they have not encountered the same number of breakdowns as us. However, they should learn from our mistakes, which is why, in essence, we need restrictions until we have dealt with that problem.
	What is wrong with the amendment from the other place? I could understand the point of it if it provided some discretion, but it would allow a time scale of only eight weeks, come what may. To me, that would be the most unrestrictive restriction possible.

Peter Atkinson: I am puzzling over the allegation that, somehow, the subsidy system prompts movements; I am having difficulty following it. I realise that hill farmers and sheep farmers receive an area payment and that there is a sheep annual premium payment, but I do not understand how that encourages them to move animals about.

David Drew: It depends on how the animals are counted and who counts them. We know that in certain parts of Europe—between the Republic and Northern Ireland, for example—sheep are moved to derive the benefits of subsidy. The figures may be exaggerated, but anyone who knows anything about that part of the world knows that it is notorious for such exploitation. The figures for the mainland may also be exaggerated, but the people I talk to lead me to believe that they are not. Some people make a living in this way, although I would much prefer that not to be the case. That is why I say that, until we can deal with the problem, we must be able to put restrictions in place.
	I speak rather a lot about bovine TB, because it is an ever-present worry in my constituency. The linkage occurs, I am led to believe, inasmuch as some work that the expert group is undertaking is considering cattle-to-cattle transfer, which also depends entirely on how regularly cattle are moved, who buys them and which parts of the country they go to. Unless we acknowledge that we must have some restrictions in place, the worry will be not just foot and mouth, but other diseases that we must also face up to. There is room for compromise here. We need a more realistic figure, as eight weeks is unrealistic.

Adam Price: The hon. Gentleman is very generous in giving way. I tend to agree about the eight weeks and the drafting of the Lords amendment is unfortunate, but should not the Government introduce a compromise solution? I am sure he agrees that continuing a 20-day rule long into the future will render livestock farming in upland areas virtually unviable.

David Drew: I agree. If I read what the Minister said correctly and given that the Government are trying to base their response on science, they are taking particular account of the Follett report, although they have also taken account of the Anderson report, which considered the practicalities. The Minister will no doubt come back on the point, but clearly he will consider the cost-benefit analysis, which will be principally a scientific evaluation. If and when it is possible to change the 20-day rule, let us change it, because it is causing my farmers some grief, although not to the extent of that faced by farmers in upland areas, even though such grief is part and parcel of how they earn their living.
	I reiterate that we must keep learning from what went wrong until we can deal with the adverse consequences and we must have those protections in place. It may not be foot and mouth next time, but it could be something else. We must protect the people whom we want to keep in farming. They understand all that, even though they are finding it very hard in the short run.

Roger Williams: First, I draw the House's attention to my entries in the Register of Members' Interests involving livestock farming. It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who was a fellow sufferer on the Standing Committee a long, long time ago, as well as a thoughtful and open-minded person about agriculture.
	The Minister said that it is a great pity that the amendment was passed by the other place, but he will accept that it represents recognition of the despair and despondency in the livestock industry resulting from the continuing imposition of the 20-day rule. It is more than a year since the last confirmed case of foot and mouth and nearly a year since Britain was declared free of the disease, so farmers are concerned that we still have one of the most rigorous forms of control that they have ever experienced. They are concerned not just because such control causes them difficulty in running their businesses, but because the evidence on which the rule was imposed has never been made clear to them.
	The Minister referred to evidence from the chief veterinary officer and other scientific advisers, but farmers always complain to me that there is no logic or rationale behind the 20-day rule, except, of course—we all understand this—that reducing the number of animal movements reduces the chance of disease being spread. Everybody accepts that and the fact that we cannot return to pre-foot and mouth times. There will be regulations and some form of control. As has been said, the NFU also accepts that.
	Such is the absolute despair of farmers, particularly in the area that I represent, that 200 of them met one night last week in Brecon market and decided to travel down to the National Assembly the next day for a symbolic burning of licence forms and applications. Quite honestly, those farmers have plenty to do, so that is an example of the exasperation that they feel over the controls. They believe that there is a disproportionate burden on the livestock industry, because the risk lies not in the industry—this is foot and mouth-clear country—but at the point of entry at ports and airports.–[Interruption.] The Minister disagrees, although I am grateful for today's announcement by the Secretary of State that the Government will reconsider how responsibility is exercised by Customs and Excise. One authority would certainly achieve greater co-operation over intelligence to be used at such points of entry. Farmers still believe that the controls are disproportionate. That, for them, is the crux of the issue.
	The hon. Member for Stroud talked about dealers. It seems to me that the main burden of such regulation is falling on farmers. Dealers often run large and sophisticated businesses. They operate from a number of locations and sites, and they also have a number of holding areas, so they can circumvent the 20-day rule without breaking it. The rule has little effect on their operation, although it has great effect on the family farmer. I shall give examples of how family farmers have found it difficult to operate.
	Last weekend, I was approached by two constituents. J.W. Hammond and Sons is a farming business in my constituency, run by a man with his two sons and their families. They operate from a number of farms, but they have a well-integrated and sustainable method of production: they produce hardy ewes on one farm, and the lambs and breeding ewes are passed to other farms. DEFRA has told them that they must have only one holding, which means that when they buy stock for a farm that is 15 miles away from another they cannot move that stock. Because they have accepted DEFRA's advice, it is impossible for them to continue a well-thought-out and efficient operation that produces good stock. Unless the 20-day rule is changed, they will be unable to continue.
	I was approached by another young farmer who had just taken on a tenancy. We want to encourage people like him to join an industry in which I think the average age is well into the fifties. He told me that because he had been unable to move 20 cattle, he would lose an extensification premium that was a key part of his cash flow and the profitability of his farm.

Simon Thomas: I, too, could give examples from my constituency illustrating the problem of the 20-day rule, but there is a further confusion in Wales. It has been announced today that there will be a review in February, but the hon. Gentleman's colleague, Mike German, announced that it would take place in Wales in January. Does that suggest that Mr. German does not have a grip on the situation, or that he needs more time to fill in his credit card slips?

Roger Williams: I do not accept either suggestion, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for leading me to my next point.
	Farmers are fed up because it is going to take so long to complete the risk assessment and the cost-benefit analysis. We are told that the preliminary results will be produced in November, and that there may be some relaxation and modification of the restriction in February. It appears that the full results will not be known until June. Many vets have suggested to me that the process could be accelerated. Does the Minister think there is any way of putting the results in the public domain more quickly, allowing us to conduct a thorough study?
	I took a number of farmers on a delegation to meet Lord Whitty, but I also took the head of animal movements from Powys county council's trading standards department. He told Lord Whitty that any restriction of movements must be one with which farmers could comply, otherwise the whole arrangement would be brought into disrepute. We have been told that a number of people have directly abused the system. Many farmers have told me, almost in confessional mode, that they believe they have broken the regulations, but because those regulations are so complex they do not understand what is required of them. I ask the Minister to speed up the process and produce clear guidelines allowing farmers to continue their business.

Paul Flynn: What unites us is a desire to avoid the dreadful human and animal suffering that took place during the foot and mouth epidemic, but the Government must stand firm. The recommendation of the best scientists, of the Royal Society and the Anderson report, was not for a 20-day but for a 28-day standstill, because that represents the incubation period of the disease. The Government have already been conciliatory. They have made a compromise in that instance, and in a number of others.
	Let us look at the risks. No one dreamt up the threat of blue tongue virus; it is spread by vectors, but it is a deadly disease that could destroy a third of our livestock, as it has elsewhere.

Roger Williams: I know that the hon. Gentleman is an expert on blue tongue disease, but has it not been absent from Wales since 1997, when Wales last had a Conservative Member of Parliament?

Paul Flynn: The disease is certainly alien to our shores. Conservative Members are similarly alien to Wales, and long may that last. But we are now being warned that because of climatic and other changes, blue tongue virus is a serious threat. There are other diseases too, such as vesicular stomatitis, which is similar to foot and mouth, and there is the possibility of vesicular swine fever. The threat is real, and is not being exaggerated.
	Nevertheless, the farming industry should know that we are looking at the reality of the spread of foot and mouth. I know that the Opposition parties are wedded to the idea that it was all the Government's fault, but they should look at the map showing movements all over the country before the disease was detected. We can see the spread from the far north to Devon, and from the east to Wales. That is why we had a problem that was not experienced in Uruguay, in the Netherlands, in Ireland or in France. In fact, the outbreak in Ireland was caused by the illegal import of an animal to Northern Ireland.
	It cannot be ignored that all sorts of people—people in the farming industry, for instance, and civil servants—turned a blind eye to illegal movements by those wishing to increase the number of claims for subsidies.

Simon Thomas: What the hon. Gentleman is describing constitutes fraud. If it was fraud, it should be investigated by the police. The 20-day rule does not help when people are behaving illegally.
	Will the hon. Gentleman at least accept that the disease was able to spread so quickly because it had been introduced into the country in the first place? Will he accept that our primary responsibility must be to prevent it from coming in, and to adopt bio-preventive measures to ensure that the spread is contained if it does ever come in?

Paul Flynn: It was fraud, but both Governments turned a blind eye on the pretext that it had happened elsewhere in Europe and they could see no reason why there should not be a multiplication of subsidies here. As for stopping the disease at source, I am afraid that that is another myth. It came here because one farmer did not pre-heat the swill he was using; if he had followed proper advice, he would not have used the swill anyway.
	It is also absurd to think that we can build a wall around the country and keep out any contraband. Despite the heroic efforts of Customs and Excise, billions of cigarettes and thousands of gallons of alcohol are smuggled in, as well as a huge amount of illegal drugs. There is no way of ensuring that the country can remain free of illegal or bad meat.

Richard Bacon: I spent several hours with Customs and Excise in Dover yesterday. In fact, it has reduced illegal tobacco imports from #1.7 billion to #400 million worth in the last few months. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman has identified a contrast that no one else is seriously identifying. The Minister tried to do the same. I do not think that any Member on either side of the House has suggested an open-door policy enabling anyone to bring in anything at any time, or a hermetically sealed country. We are certainly not suggesting either. We are saying that a higher profile can change the mindset of most of the people who are engaging in such action, many of whom are doing so innocently. That can be seen in Australia and the United States.

Paul Flynn: That was an extremely helpful intervention as it makes the point that whatever we do we cannot stop imports coming in and bringing diseases into the country. So what should we do? The farming industry is reluctant to do anything as it is set in its ways. Farmers want to do their job in the same way as their parents and grandparents, but they must understand that this rule must stay. There is an easy, simple, cheaper alternative that has already been used. That is to use the methods that were used during the foot-and-mouth epidemic whereby animals were sold directly or through simple technology such as video links and the internet. That method avoids the expense of taking animals to market and the journeys and the animals can pass from farm to farm or to the slaughterhouse or where ever else they are going without contact with other animals. That is what we should all be encouraging.

Bill Wiggin: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that even with the 20-day rule, disease can be transmitted through illegal acts, so that although the more rules the Government make, the more likely it is in theory that disease will be prevented, what really happens is that law-abiding farmers go out of business, and farmers who break the law continue to spread disease. The weakness in the 20-day rule, which has value directly after an outbreak, is that it will put law-abiding farmers and livestock markets out of business and affect the infrastructure on which all farmers depend to earn a living. Does the hon. Gentleman not see that even if the Government insist on it, the bad guys will continue to break the law?

Paul Flynn: I am following the best advice of the two bodies that I mentioned. No one made any suggestion that they were wrong in suggesting this essential deterrent.
	I represent farmers and there were three outbreaks of foot and mouth in my constituency, but my constituents are overwhelmingly industrial workers who work mainly in the steel and aluminium industry. They have suffered terribly in the past two years and more than half their jobs have disappeared. All those families contributed #5 per week last year to pay for foot and mouth, in addition to the #10 per week they pay the farming industry in subsidies. If another disease comes along, is it reasonable that taxpayers—including the steel and aluminium workers in my constituency—should pick up the bill? If the farming industry is not prepared to take these sensible, modest precautions, why on earth should taxpayers pick up the bill for the next epidemic?

Peter Atkinson: I am not sure whether or not it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), who has clearly missed his vocation. He should have been a 19th-century non-conformist Welsh preacher predicting Armageddon—[Hon. Members: XHe is."] Perhaps he is. He reminds me of a character from a Dylan Thomas poem. I think it was Organ Morgan, but hon. Members will correct me if I am wrong. I should stress to the hon. Gentleman that Opposition Members are not against having some form of movement restriction—we are simply opposed to the particular restriction.
	Let me begin by doing a Conservative thing and defending the dealers. We have had a lot of mud slung at the dealers in the course of the debate so far. Dealers are perfectly respectable people; they are simply using the market. The way that the livestock market has developed in the United Kingdom has encouraged the intervention of dealers. The reason is that we have a very large number of centralised meatpacking firms or abattoirs that require large numbers of animals on a regular basis. They get them from dealers who collect them from different parts of the country. Dealers make a turn on the price while fulfilling the needs of the abattoirs for a regular supply of animals. For better or worse, that is where we are with the market.

David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he will agree with me that it is one of the structural problems of the industry that we have a concentration of livestock and a concentration of kill within abattoirs purely at the behest of the large supermarkets and their demands on the industry. We have to address that at some stage.

Peter Atkinson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it has to do with the structure of the industry, but I am not sure whether we can change it. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is the equivalent of suggesting that we ought to scrap large car plants and that all motor cars should be built in small back-street garages as they were in past centuries. The meat processing business is hugely capital intensive, requiring people working 365 days a year in two shifts. That is the way it is. A meat-packing plant in the hon. Gentleman's part of the country will eventually have to source lamb from my constituency in the north of England. That is a feature of the industry. Whether or not it is desirable, it is not easy to change. The dealers are providing for modern economics.
	The Minister was critical of the amendment and I do not believe it is a particularly good one, but it provides us with an opportunity to debate a serious matter that is affecting farmers in my constituency very badly. It gives us the opportunity of expressing our concerns, hopefully in a vote. The Minister said that a large proportion of the livestock industry can cope with these regulations, but many farmers cannot. We have heard tonight that upland farmers in particular will find it extremely difficult. Certainly in the north of England, in the Pennines, the livestock buying and selling year is contracted into September and October. It has a very tight span. Farmers who breed sheep and suckler cows need to move breeding replacements on to the farm and to sell lambs and ewes at the autumn sales. If animal movements are restricted, those farmers have to hold stock on their farms which means extra expense and if the weather is particularly bad—fortunately it was not too bad this autumn—it would cause welfare problems. These are enormous costs to farmers who are already struggling. At the risk of being slightly out of order, farmers are facing not only the economic problems caused by the 20-day rule but the economic problems caused by the slowness of the Rural Payments Agency to pay up and the muddle caused by so many mistakes at the British Cattle Movement Service in Workington which means that cattle which are going into the over-30-months scheme are now being disqualified because of administrative errors that are not their fault. Perhaps the Minister will look at that in due course.
	As I said, we accept the need for a traceability scheme and that would be the final answer. We also accept the need for some form of movement restriction, but it has to be very much more relaxed than it is currently. Farmers have suffered this autumn; they do not want to suffer next autumn. It is absolutely imperative that whatever scheme the Minister introduces, it must be properly in place early in the year so that the spring movement of livestock from winter quarters to summer quarters can begin. In particular it must be up and working at the end of the next back-end season.
	Other suggestions have been made which the Minister did not consider for long enough. The simple scheme produced by auctioneers whereby farmers have three dyes and dye sheep with one colour one week, the next colour the following week and another for the third week means that no animal can be sold or brought to market until it has reached the three-week period. That is an incredibly simple system which would have carried us over until a proper system was put in place.
	Let me reiterate that the real cost of this 20-day movement restriction falls on a particularly vulnerable group of farmers. While they all appreciate that some form of movement is needed, they need a more liberal regime, which will allow them at least to hang on to their lives and their work for a few more years.

David Curry: Perhaps we can first get one or two historical facts in place. The movement of livestock is not some sort of modern aberration; it is at the absolute heart of the agricultural economy throughout Europe. Transhumance is one of the oldest practices of the human race. I refer the House to one of the great books—Ferdinand Braudel's XThe Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Phillip II". Although not particularly imaginative, Phillip II was an assiduous and meticulous monarch who ruled a very large empire. The culture of the Mediterranean world is based on the principle of transhumance, so let us get away from the idea that a bunch of wicked dealers have intruded on a pastoral scene characterised by William Cobbett, and brought it kicking and screaming into a bizarre modern world.
	Let us also be clear that the consequences of the foot and mouth epidemic highlighted the importance of such movements, which are traditional, rather than bizarre movements designed to rig the system. When foot and mouth struck in my constituency, animals that had been sent to the lowlands to over-winter should have been coming back up to the hill. In fact, they could not be moved—they were caught in fields full of mud. In Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire, where some farmers specialise in looking after animals over the winter, the resulting welfare conditions were serious. Of course, the sale of breeding stock off the hills forms part of the backbone of the uplands economy, and it is also one of the major sources of livestock for the lowlands. Those are traditional movements that are intrinsic to agriculture, and we have to find a way in which to accommodate them.
	I should point out to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) that I realise that, in many ways, auction marts must appear to be some sort of Dickensian throwback—part of the world of XOne Man and His Dog", or a television series about vets. However, in the light of his concerns and comments, he should not underestimate the role of the auction mart in combating the social exclusion experienced by those who live remote lives. They do not often meet their fellow human beings, and they derive benefit from meeting in the fug of the fish and chip shop or the pie shop.

Paul Flynn: During the recess, I visited Llanrwst market, which is outside my constituency, and spoke to the farmers assembled there. The strongest argument that they made in favour of the continuation of the mart was that it was the day on which families came to Llanrwst for social reasons. One understands that entirely, but there must be some way to improve their social life and reduce their isolation other than by getting animals together in a traditional but very dangerous way.

David Curry: The hon. Gentleman and I may not be very far apart. In practice, we will see a more integrated food chain, farmers contracting to retailers, and the pre-selection of animals, which go straight to the abattoirs. In fact, some auction marts are acting as intermediaries in order to organise that trade. So the role of the auction mart is changing.

John Gummer: Is it not true that, when we get to that stage, many of the Members who complained about dealers will be complaining that we do not have dealers any longer, and saying how much better things were in those days? One cannot ever get it right.

David Curry: That is certainly true, and they will also complain that they have received planning application for the building of 93 desirable houses on the site of the auction mart, including a complement of social housing, which will doubtless occasion concern for other parts of the village. I speak from some experience, but I shall not go further down that route.
	We should also admit that there were dreadful examples of negligence during the foot and mouth outbreak. In North Yorkshire, many farmers have several scattered holdings. Indeed, the Department found it difficult to come to terms with the fact that many farmers owned plots of land that were quite close together, but not contiguous. Some of those farmers moved stock from one farm to the other without any semblance of precaution. That was clearly criminal in spirit, if not in practice. The miracle of the foot and mouth outbreak was that the disease never reached the pig herds in Humberside. Had it done so, we would have got into vaccination to slaughter. The sheer volume of slaughter could have been coped with and brought under order only by the introduction of vaccination.
	I make those preliminary points because I want to ensure that the Minister, for whom I have a lot of respect, understands the issue. I know his brief, and I also know how difficult it is under the 20-day rule to operate normal farming practice on a mixed beef and sheep farm in the uplands. People have to move animals around—to market, to pasture—and the high hills will not sustain them throughout the year. There are also practical problems. The Minister has said that there has to be a form of cordon sanitaire around a holding, but one cannot establish an isolation unit with a 50 m boundary for 300 sheep on a hill farm. In practice, it is very difficult to deliver that and then service the sheep with the tup.
	As I pointed out to the Minister, under the problematic anomalies of the 20-day rule, I could buy 300 sheep and put them in a field next to sheep owned by my neighbour. If we are lucky, there are dry-stone walls and the sheep will not mingle. However, it is just as likely that the sheep will be separated by a few strands of wire, so they will mingle and converse, as it were. My neighbour, who is not caught by any restriction, could immediately sell off sheep that had been in contact with restricted sheep. Equally, in some cases the rule has the perverse impact of promoting the use of dealers. Let us consider the example of a farmer in Cumbria or North Yorkshire, who used to be able to buy young calves in the autumn from various local farms in a 40 mile radius. All those farms are now caught by the same restrictions as he is, so the way to get round that is to buy the animals from a dealer who is shipping them from 250 miles away. In other words, the farmer is actually forced into an alternative pattern of procurement. According to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), that increases exposure to the transmission of illness.
	In making my final point, I shall use the example, if I may, of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). Farmer Gummer and I can both send our sheep to market, and the sheep can sit in adjacent pens in the auction mart. As we know, they are mere tubular structures, and communication can take place between pens. Let us say that I decide to buy Farmer Gummer's sheep, and I take them home. As long as I put them in an isolation unit, I will not be caught by the restriction. However, if I do not sell my sheep and I want to take them home, they will be caught by the 20-day rule—even though they have been in contact only with Farmer Gummer's sheep—and I will be unable to sell them on.
	I appreciate that there are bound to be such anomalies; it is very difficult to establish schemes without them. However, in talking about trying to get the farming community to accept the necessity of restrictions, it is important to ensure that farmers cannot say, XHang on, has anybody who has devised the restrictions thought about how we practise in reality—how we live and get through the working day?" As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) pointed out, the scheme in Scotland operates somewhat differently. I accept that those differences are in the detail, but the regime is slightly more liberal in respect of, for example, applications for licences. There is spot-checking, as opposed to the prior approvals that have to be obtained in England. In Scotland, any animal can be put into segregation without triggering the provision; in England, however, only breeding animals can qualify under that criterion.
	As a result of devolution, practices are diverging. Premium payments are now different on the two sides of the border, because the British Government—on behalf of England and Wales—decided to retain an element of the payment for a general kitty. That decision was not taken in Scotland, however. I imagine that that rule could be modified for Scotland under the powers of devolution, so that it becomes more different from that which applies in England. The argument would then arise of level playing fields within these shores, rather than simply between these shores and elsewhere.
	I agree that the Lords amendment is not particularly well thought out, but it has served its purpose by enabling us to bring to the Minister's attention the practical problems experienced by farmers who want to make the system work, who are not out to dodge the system, and who have been through a tremendously rough time.
	In my constituency, the second worst category of farmer was those whose animals got foot and mouth disease; the worst category was those whose animals did not because they could not move their cattle or earn a living, and the sheep were sucking the stones dry on the hills. Those farmers are now entering a further period of severe restrictions.
	The Minister should spell out the programme and the scenarios that he hopes to be able to apply and acknowledge that he may want to retain some form of permanent restrictions, but ones that go with the grain of farming practices. He should show that he is seeking, as is inevitable across the field of such activities, to find the balance between the necessary precaution and enabling the industry that he is seeking to preserve to be able to continue to earn a living so that it can help to preserve itself.

Simon Thomas: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who has just given some very good examples that are particularly pertinent to upland Wales, which experiences the anomalies and some of the perverse incentives in the present system that work against what many Labour Members have talked about tonight.
	On behalf of Plaid Cymru, I want to make it clear at the outset that we find the amendment to be particularly awful in its drafting. Nevertheless, it has given us a useful opportunity to debate this vital issue and the way in which it is affecting farmers, particularly those in Wales and England, but not so much those in Scotland. It gives us an opportunity to raise a very basic principle about how we will cope in the future not only with the spread of foot and mouth, but its introduction into the United Kingdom.
	Plaid Cymru strongly supports the principle of movement control. We must know what is happening to the movement of agricultural animals in this country. We must know where the animal is, where it has been and its intervening journey. However, there has been much talk in the debate about movement restrictions, and I should like to draw a distinction.
	The term Xrestrictions" suggests a predetermination of the cost-benefit analysis that will be done on the 20-day rule. It suggests that people already accept that farming must be restricted in that way. An alternative should be considered and certainly thoroughly analysed whereby animal movements are controlled using the detailed information that we have on those animals. The case has been made powerfully that, certainly after the foot and mouth outbreak in the north of England, it was not just the movement of animals that created difficulties, but the fact that people did not know where those animals had been, how they had been kept and the way that biosecurity measures had been applied to them.
	I accept that things must be very different in future, but we have to go with the grain of farming practice, as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon said. There has been a lot of talk this evening and outside the House about movements and restrictions that simply do not go with the grain of farming practice and therefore will not work because people will not want to follow them, or because they will go out of business if they do follow them.
	We must remember that the two inquiry reports that have been much mentioned in the debate said that the 20-day rule should apply until the cost-benefit analysis has been carried out. In response to a question that I asked during today's statement, the Secretary of State made it clear that that cost-benefit analysis would include alternatives to the 20-day rule. I welcome that, and I hope that that will be clear.
	What are the principles in applying any sort of movement control? First, we must prevent disease in the first place. Secondly, we must deal with the spread of disease if it were ever to occur. The main priority for preventing disease is, of course, stopping it coming into the country in the first place. We have heard some messages of doom and gloom and been told that we cannot stop disease or illegal imports, but the fact is that the Government have not been doing enough on illegal meat imports. Only now is there a realisation of the need to take co-ordinated action. That must be the main priority.
	Of course if disease comes into the country, we must consider how to stop or at least limit its spread. Plainly, we must therefore consider not only the 20-day rule, but the whole question of biosecurity. That is the key. Good biosecurity being practised on all farms at all times will limit the spread of any disease, whatever it is. Some diseases are more virulent than others. The problem in the west Wales dairy industry at the moment is TB, not blue tongue or foot and mouth.
	Any restriction, control or measure that we place on farming has to be proportionate to its ability to meet it practically and financially. The income of each upland farmer in Wales was about #4,200 last year, so they do not have much scope to invest in any system or to bear its costs.
	The hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) is very keen to remind everyone of the massive subsidy—#10 a week—that every family pays to each farmer, but that money does not go into farmers' pockets. Their pockets were not stuffed full of those tenners in Llanrwst, and he knows it. The money goes into the wasteful, awful common agricultural policy. Farmers do not want to be part of that any more than we do, but that is the price that we pay for cheap food—the second or third cheapest food in the developed world.
	The fact is that the consumer does not really pay the price of their food; they pay in a round about way. Not only do they pay when they go into the supermarket or shop and pay 40p, 37p, or whatever, for a pint of milk; they pay subsidy as well. So we in this country pay for our food twice if not three times over. If we want a better relationship between farmers and consumers and to make this aspect of the Bill work better, the price of biosecurity on food has to be included at the consumer end. It is not just the farmers who bear the weight; the consumer has to face the real cost of food production as well.

Paul Flynn: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the report by the Consumers Association stating that a basket of food was bought in the United Kingdom and in New Zealand and that it was discovered that the price in New Zealand was half the price here? Farmers in New Zealand have not had any subsidy for the past 16 years.

Simon Thomas: If there is so much waste in the CAP, food prices will decline, but I was making the point—the hon. Gentleman has to accept this—that the consumer does not just pay for food when he or she goes into a supermarket; they pay through their taxes for the CAP as well, and reforming the CAP is the key.

Peter Atkinson: The hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) mentions New Zealand, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know that in New Zealand the grass grows 12 months a year, so cattle can stay out all year and do not need to be fed inside. Of course that makes New Zealand products much cheaper.

Simon Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning that aspect of farming, which the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon also mentioned.
	If we are to encourage farmers to go more directly to market, which is part of the answer to dealing with foot and mouth, by cutting away all the wasteful journey times, we have to ensure that farmers are able to market more directly by moving livestock. We cannot take livestock movements out of the market. Some of the dealers may be slightly less than above board, but they generally meet the requirements of the market.
	The largest abattoir just outside my constituency—it is in that of my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price)—Oriel Jones in Llanybydder, meets the demands of the supermarkets. The input into that abattoir is more than the local market can bear, so dealers must feed that abattoir. That is part of a wider question, but it is wrong to place on farmers the whole pressure of biosecurity under the 20-day rule. My concern is that farmers may bear all that pressure, but we should consider the wider context of how to ensure that the whole of the farming industry is safe, clean and free from disease.

Bill Wiggin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that not only are farmers expected to bear the costs, but, given the implications of some of the comments made by Labour Members, they are to blame for the entire foot and mouth outbreak? It simply cannot be the case that the disease was imported by the farming community in the first place.

Simon Thomas: I certainly reject any suggestion that farming was to blame for the disease entering the country in the first place, but legitimate farming practices, approved by the Government and previous Governments for many years, may have exacerbated the disease. There is a lesson to be learned, but nevertheless they were legitimate practices.
	I well remember the astonishment when the Government announced that X million journeys were made by animals during two or three weeks and everyone took a breath as they thought that that practice was illegal and that a scandal had been found. Did they not know that that happened all the time and that it was a natural part of farming practice? As the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon said, farmers in Wales have moved livestock around not just for years, decades or centuries, but for millennia. In Wales, the drovers' roads, some of which we still travel on to get to the House, follow the path taken from my constituency to London. Cattle, geese, pigs and sheep were moved around the country. That is nothing new, and it is a vital part of farming. As the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) said, the environment and climate in Wales are not suitable for year-round farming.
	I hope that the Minister will accept that some movement of animals is part of sustainable farming practice. If we want to ensure that artificial fertilisers, pesticides and feed are not used—and we must remember the feedstocks that are used in America, the other place where food is cheapest—we must support sustainable farming. An element of animal movement is part of that.

Paul Flynn: Animal movements take place in Uruguay, the Netherlands, France and Ireland, but the disease did not spread in those countries as it did here. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that excessive and unnecessary animal movements take place in this country, and that only the 20-day rule will eliminate them?

Simon Thomas: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in asking for the reopening of local slaughterhouses. They have been going down like nine pins in my constituency. I agree with the central point, but in his comments this evening the hon. Gentleman has put the responsibility for the outbreak directly on farmers. The problem is much more complex. There is a whole industry, driven by the retail side, which affects what happens.

Adam Price: We are discussing a Bill about animal health, and there is an animal welfare aspect to the problems caused by the delay. Of necessity, upland farmers need to trade stored animals. Any delay could cause animal welfare problems because of the lack of food and shelter. That has a knock-on effect in terms of the availability of food for breeding stock.

Simon Thomas: I agree. My constituency was not directly affected by foot and mouth, but some areas were restricted. I had an awful case involving a farmer who could not move stock because of restrictions, even though the RSPCA was investigating what was going on.

John Gummer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he was far too kind to the hon. Member for Newport West, (Paul Flynn)? Although the movements of animals in this country may be rather longer than they would be in an ideal world, there could be no fewer movements if we returned to the system that the hon. Member for Newport describes. Movement is part of the normal way of dealing with animals. It is only the ignorance of people locked up in towns that causes them not to understand that.

Simon Thomas: I shall not reiterate the points that the right hon. Gentleman has made. There is a saying in Wales that we knock the gatepost for the gate to hear: I hope that the hon. Member for Newport West, heard what the right hon. Gentleman said.
	I shall conclude by enumerating the basics that should underpin the debate. First, we need to prevent disease coming to the country in the first place. That is primarily a matter of dealing with illegal meat imports and production. There have been of cases of meat being produced illegally for the smokies trade in west Wales and London. That is a real concern of mine.
	Secondly, if disease breaks out again, we must ensure that it does not spread. That is a matter of biosecurity in the farming industry, which must be constant, rather than a one-off response to disease. We must identify the animals that have been moved around, and where they have been moved to, which means that we must have a proper animal movement identification system. If disease is present, we must deal with the animals involved, and contiguous animals. We debated earlier whether the best way to do that was by culling or vaccination. I support movement control, but it can be achieved only in co-operation with the industry and farmers, and only if it does not destroy or undermine the livestock industry. After all, we do not want the countryside to be free of disease if that means that we have to import all our meat, do we?

Elliot Morley: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to the debate.
	Lords amendment No. 45 is important. It is inevitable that the House will want to concentrate on it, given the interest in the 20-day animal movement limit. The Government accept the main thrust of the amendment. We want to make some small technical changes, which I shall explain in a moment.
	The hon. Members for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) and the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), and my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) all made fair points about the impact of animal movements on the industry. They accepted the need for movements, which the Government recognise, but all speakers conceded that some movements have to be stopped as one of a range of a disease control measures.
	The question is where that stop should fall, which is why an independent assessment is being conducted. The House of Lords asked for time to consider the independent reports, so I am surprised that their lordships have ignored their recommendations. That is why I am asking the House to reject this amendment. It has been useful as a platform for debate, but it does not really add to the Bill. It is inappropriate, and we should wait for the proper assessment as we continue the debate with industry.
	The Government do not disagree with the arguments advanced in the other place that biosecurity must apply to everyone in the livestock industry. It must include the Department's staff, contractors, hauliers and everyone who goes on to farms. However, we have two small differences of opinion when it comes to the amendment.
	First, it is unnecessary to make specific provision that the Secretary of State must send final guidance on biosecurity to those persons and organisations listed in the amendment's compliance provisions, which are very specific. It is a standard requirement for the Department that written consultations are sent out to such persons or organisations as the Secretary of State considers to be representative. The provision is worded in broad terms in the Government's proposal, so that the Secretary of State is not unnecessarily restricted. For example, the Secretary of State might want to seek the views of vets or scientists. They do not fall within the very strictly defined categories in proposed new subsection 6B(5).
	Secondly, proposed new subsection 6B(1) deals with the distribution of guidance to all those listed in proposed new section 6A(3). It is significant, because it would mean that the exercise by the Government of functions under this legislation would be unlawful if the Government, for whatever reason, did not distribute guidance to all those listed, regardless of whether the guidance was relevant or applicable to them.
	Clearly, it would not be acceptable for the Government to have their power to act removed in that way for failing to distribute guidance to everyone on the list. There is always someone who might claim that they did not receive the guidance. The list is so specific and narrowly defined that it would leave the Government open to all sorts of difficulties.
	That is not to say that the Government are against distributing information and guidance. We are committed to openness and transparency, and to communicating relevant information about all policies and about the proportionate action that we would take to prevent the spread of animal disease.
	That is why we have ensured that the requirement already in the Bill to publish the biosecurity guidance will ensure that it is available to all the people, organisations, and stakeholder representatives who need to know about it. We want to make sure that people get the information, but the amendment is unduly restrictive.
	I hope that the House will accept the minor amendment that the Government propose.

John Hayes: With the leave of the House, I shall say a word about biosecurity. As the Minister said, we did not debate it at the start of the discussion of this group of amendments. However, it seems to be linked intrinsically with the 20-day rule, as I said earlier. In many ways, preventing animals from spreading foot and mouth has to go hand in hand with the dispersal of information among everyone who might have contact with livestock during a disease crisis.
	That was the subject of consideration in the other place. The Lords was determined to ensure that the information was comprehensible, coherent, and distributed as widely as possible. If people are going to make lots of movements in and out of infected areas that requires them to be informed about risk as fully and well as possible. That is part of risk management, as the Minister acknowledged in his brief remarks. However, the Lords would like a specific list of organisations that the Secretary of State is obliged to contact on biosecurity measures. The Minister said that that is standard practice, that it is done all the time, and that he was sure that the Secretary of State would use her judgment. That is fine and good, but I think that the Lords are right in saying that distributing and publishing such information and sending out draft material needs to be specified clearly in the Bill. To that end, we support the Lords amendment.

Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
	The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 178.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	It being three and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, Mr Deputy Speaker put the remaining Question required to be put at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
	Amendments proposed to the Lords amendment No. 45: (a) and (b).
	Question put, That the amendments be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 174.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 45, as amended, agreed to [Special Entry].

Clause 6
	 — 
	Treatment: Power Of Entry

Lords amendment: No. 14.

Elliot Morley: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 15 to 21, 22 and Government amendment (a) thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 23 to 29, 35 and Government amendment (a) thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 36 to 42, 65 and Government amendment (a) thereto and Lords amendments Nos. 66 to 72.

Elliot Morley: The amendments deal with warrant provisions. In the other place, the Government accepted a series of changes to warrant provisions that reflect the concerns expressed about powers of entry under the measure.
	We understand that the issue is sensitive and we would not use powers of entry unless there was justification for doing so. The main justification is the need to take swift and rapid action in order to prevent the spread of disease. The provisions were recommended in the independent reports to ensure that the Government can take speedy and effective action on disease control. These provisions cover entry to farms for the purposes of vaccination, slaughter, testing and sampling, and the scrapie provisions of the Bill.
	The Government listened carefully to the arguments about the warrant conditions that were made in Committee, on Report and in another place. The Government amendments tabled in another place introduce further safeguards to reinforce substantially the conditions that must be satisfied before any warrant can be granted. Again, that is because we recognise the importance of the issue. Taken as a whole, the changes satisfy the need to ensure that the powers are subject to a rigorous and transparent test of reasonableness and that the overall balance of public interest takes proper account of the private interests and rights of farmers and landowners.
	However, the Opposition amendments provide for representations to a magistrate; that would be legally unprecedented and unwelcome, in the sense that it would be difficult to make such a system work. The previous system also led to delays in some circumstances. There are no precedents in legislation for providing a right to make representations during the warrant-issuing process. I want to emphasise that.
	If we were to allow representations to the magistrate, there would have to be a reasonable period in which to make them and the opportunity to seek legal advice before making them. That condition would have to be applied. The risk is that we would have further delays if the court then required additional or expert evidence, or if there were an application for legal aid. We cannot delay disease control by several hours, or even days in some cases, while this goes on. That would undermine one of the principles of the Bill. If we are to deal with disease control—whether by culling, vaccination or serology—we must get on with it as quickly and effectively as possible. We will not do that by overriding people's rights, because the occupier does have the right to make representations to the divisional veterinary manager, as we discussed in Committee.
	It may be worth noting that the final figures from the 2001 outbreak show that there were a total of 584 appeals against slaughter, of which all but four were dealt with by the local DVM. Of the 584 cases where animal owners challenged decisions to slaughter livestock, 534 were appealing against contiguous culls. In total, 376 of those appeals were upheld, 336 of which were appeals against contiguous culls.
	I mention the figures because there has been a tendency for one or two people to say that appealing to the DVM will not get anyone far, as the DVM is part of the machinery of the process. However, the figures demonstrate that, during the 2001 outbreak, hundreds of people made appeals that were upheld. The request to review a decision to slaughter is an effective mechanism by which farmers are able to challenge such decisions. I recognise that it is not a formal appeal process, but it can lead to people making representations and to the decision being reconsidered. There are hundreds of examples of where that has been the case. I should emphasise, as I did in Committee, that the subsequent right to seek judicial review also remains.

David Heath: The Under-Secretary is just coming to the important point of judicial review. Is not it also correct to say that a farmer could seek an injunction from the High Court for a stay of the operation until such time as the judicial review was held, which could create a much greater delay than the one the hon. Gentleman is trying to avoid by the process that he is describing?

Elliot Morley: That is a possibility, and I shall come to it in a moment. However, the processes are different, and it would be rather extreme to seek injunctions in such cases. It has been argued that the speed of the judicial review process might mean animals being vaccinated, blood-tested or culled. That is true; nevertheless the Department is still subject to that judicial review. That is a serious issue and one that the Department must take into account. We must make sure that whatever we do is proportionate and applied properly. Those legal rights remain. The hon. Gentleman is right in the sense that the Bill does not take away a farmer's right to seek a High Court injunction blocking the warrant. The warrant procedure also has fundamental safeguards built in, and the magistrate must always be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for an inspector to enter the premises. That issue, too, was discussed in Committee. One cannot just ask for a warrant and expect to get it automatically: one must have a reasonable case to present to the magistrate to be granted that warrant.

Richard Bacon: It is a relief to hear that the Government are not proposing to abolish judicial review of administrative action. The Under-Secretary described that as rather extreme, and it would be extreme if a farmer had to go to the High Court to get an injunction to stop the action before it had occurred. Is not the whole point of the amendment that simply being able to go before a justice of the peace and argue the toss at the time would obviate what he calls extreme?

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman, who knows a thing or two about law, knows well that such duplication of the legal process does not currently exist. It would be unique in law to have such a procedure in front of a JP when seeking a warrant. There is no precedent for that, and it would have implications for the whole question of issuing warrants. That cannot be conceded, and he will recognise the reasons for that, too. In amending this part of the Bill, we are trying to reassure people that whatever measures are applied in the Bill, it is not just about culling, which people focus on because it is an emotional and important issue; it is about serology, taking samples and vaccination. I am absolutely certain that when applying some of these measures in future disease epidemics, a warrant will have to be sought in some cases to enter people's property to vaccinate and blood-test. I repeat to Members the example of one individual who delayed the lifting of restrictions in a whole region because he would not allow the Department to take blood samples from his goats on the grounds that it would upset them. That had far-reaching detrimental effects on the whole area. We therefore need measures for a range of techniques in terms of disease control, and culling is only one of them.

Andrew George: In that case, surely the Under-Secretary would want to avoid a situation in which a farmer might seek to use a much more lengthy legal process to delay the matter further. Given that he says that a reasonable case would need to be made to a magistrate, does he accept that the point of the original Lords amendment was that that reasonable case need not be one-sided, and that the facts about the farm from the farmer's perspective should be put to the magistrate, too?

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman has returned to the problem that, if there is to be such a process, the Department may want its lawyers and vets to make a case, but the farmer may want to make his case, take legal advice, consult on his legal advice, and apply for legal aid. The delays would therefore go on and on. We need to avoid that while taking into account the issue of people's rights. That is what we are trying to do with the measure, as we have made significant changes during the passage of the Bill to take into account the concerns that people have raised. I appreciate that going for a High Court injunction could also cause a delay, but that is a much bigger step than going to the High Court, and I doubt whether many people would want to do that. It does not take away people's rights, however, which we cannot do in relation to seeking such an injunction—that right is not removed. We are trying to give people the right to appeal to DVMs, who know the local area and the local circumstances, and who, as I demonstrated, upheld the cases of hundreds of people who made representations to them during the last outbreak, all around the country. The system acknowledges that when a case needs to be taken into account and investigated, the DVM is prepared to do that.
	I also emphasise that the Joint Committee on Human Rights reported that the procedure for making representations to the DVM and with regard to existing legal rights is fair and does not contravene human rights. It stated that
	Xthe provisions of the Bill are in principle unlikely to be incompatible with either the right in national law under ECHR Article 6(1) to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal in the determination of civil rights and obligations, or the right in international law to an effective remedy before a national authority for violations of Convention rights under ECHR Article 13."
	That is unequivocal guidance. It is clear that the measures are considered fair and proportionate.
	The provision for farmers to make representations to magistrates as part of the warrant process would be unprecedented. Hon. Members might recall that that was raised in Committee. I was not sure whether the procedure could be supported. However, after receiving proper legal advice and consulting other Departments, it is clear that the process would be unprecedented and make a fundamental change to the nature of warrant provisions.

Andrew George: On a technical matter, can the Minister clarify how the new procedure will work if the Government amendment is accepted? Will the farmer have a right to appeal to the DVM after a warrant has been granted?

Elliot Morley: That is an interesting point. It might be a bit late to appeal to a DVM after a warrant is issued. We want to ensure that farmers are aware of the provision and understand how to make representations to the DVM. That is dealt with in the slaughter protocol. I promised that we would include clear guidance on the procedures to be followed when culling policies are applied so that farmers are aware of their right to make representations to the DVM, so I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that.

Angela Browning: The Minister will recall that in Committee I raised the legal basis on which he was introducing the Bill and suggested that it might be subject to legal challenge. I hear what he said about having taken legal advice. He will know that such things are ultimately challenged in the court, which ends up the determinant in such matters. However, I am glad that he took further legal advice and hope he understands the underlying concern—the gravity—with which people view the powers that he is taking to himself.

Elliot Morley: I understand that, but the way in which the powers will be exercised has been exaggerated. People have ignored the fact that a Minister will have to apply a power proportionately and responsibly. It is not possible simply to go and ask for a warrant; it is necessary to make the case and demonstrate why a warrant to go on someone's property is needed. The Department would not take the decision to apply for a warrant lightly and I am sure no magistrate would take the decision to grant a warrant lightly.

David Heath: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being patient with us as we try to understand the process. Having heard representations from a farmer, would the DVM be required to provide that information to the magistrate when seeking a warrant and proving the correctness or otherwise of an application? That would allow the magistrate to be in possession of information from people on both sides of the case when he makes an assessment. A response to that would help enormously in ascertaining whether the process is satisfactory.

Elliot Morley: On the detailed questions, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am not a lawyer and I am careful not to offend lawyers—it can be an expensive business. People will have the right to make representations to the DVM. It would not be unreasonable for the magistrate to ask whether the farmer's representations had been taken into account. The magistrate would have the right to ask that. Of course, we are making sure that people are aware of their rights. It is entirely up to individuals whether they avail themselves of the right to appeal to the DVM, but it is a provision. As I outlined to the House, many hundreds of farmers did so and the DVM recognised and conceded the cases of many hundreds of farmers, which demonstrates that the system works and that, if people have a reasonable case, the DVM will take note of it and respond—the evidence is there for all to see.

Angela Browning: May I put to the Minister a case that was common during the foot and mouth outbreak? It concerns farms that were in a contiguous area and were due to be culled out, but the cull did not take place immediately. He kindly saw me about two farms in my constituency. In those cases, we had reached day 19 before they received notification that they were going to be culled out. Surely, it must be obvious to the DVM that that is unreasonable. As it happens, the four farms in my patch that fell into that category are still alive and doing well. However, when that sort of thing happens, unless a Member of Parliament or some other such person intervenes, orders can be executed in an unreasonable time frame.

Elliot Morley: That is not an unreasonable point. However, we are talking retrospectively about something that happened at the height of an epidemic, when there was a real need to get to grips with the situation and people were under enormous pressure. We have learned a lot of lessons from the epidemic. It would be very irresponsible of us had we not learned them and had we not recognised that there were things that we could do better. That is why the protocols that have been agreed give clear guidance, for example, to the DVM on dealing with contiguous culls and on how the guidance should be applied.
	Indeed, there is an argument for taking local conditions into account and for more flexibility. Those are some of the issues that people have put to us and we are not unsympathetic to them.I believe that we have responded in the Bill and, in particular, in putting in place the protocols, which are also published. People can see the sort of guidelines and procedures that our DVMs and vets have to follow.

Joan Walley: In view of what my hon. Friend the Minister has just said about the protocols that are now in place and the lessons that the Government are learning, is he convinced that the Government now have the balance right? The introduction of SI 843, Animal Health, England, which applied to BSE, caused some alarm because of provisions on forced entry—indeed, my constituent Mrs. Jones shared that concern. Does he think that there are now safeguards and that people need not be concerned about that power of entry in view of the raft of measures that we are introducing?

Elliot Morley: Absolutely. My hon. Friend is referring to the statutory instrument dealing with the TSE regulations, which we debated in Committee and which was carried with no opposition. I made it clear to the Committee that there had been an enormous amount of disinformation as regards that regulation, which has somehow got tied up with the measures in the Bill. The TSE regulations deal with BSE and TSE. There are no entry powers within that regulation. It deals with BSE and cohort cases—if a cow goes down with BSE, the cohort is slaughtered to safeguard public health.
	One of the more incredible allegations was that the TSE order had been sneaked in by the back door, despite the fact that we consulted nearly 1,000 organisations about it, none of which expressed any concern. That shows that even well-meaning people can sometimes get carried away with the wrong interpretation of the Government's actions and intentions. I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend and that she can reassure her constituent. I have answered one or two letters on the matter, and have made it clear that people have been misled. I am sure that that is true in the case of my hon. Friend's constituent.

Richard Bacon: Will the Minister confirm that the amendment requiring warrants to be executed only at a reasonable hour unless the inspector thinks that the case is urgent is the result of an amendment tabled by the Government? If so, does the Minister accept that no one would expect such a condition to apply to a warrant for a drugs bust, when one would not want to give advance notice to drug dealers? His earlier argument that the amendment fundamentally undermines the nature of warrant issue is therefore flawed.

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman's example is very different from the warrants under discussion. We are not dealing with criminals. We are trying to deal reasonably with people. The amendment was a Government amendment, tabled in the light of representations that we received in Committee and in the other place. It is a genuine attempt to allay people's concerns. We understand that if we are taking powers to go on to someone's property in order to carry out disease control measures, whatever they are—not necessarily culling—people need to be reassured that they would be used only if it were absolutely necessary, and that they would be applied in a proportionate and reasonable way. That is what we are trying to do.

Richard Bacon: Of course I realise that we are not dealing with criminals; that was precisely my point. The Minister, if I understood him correctly, was arguing that we could not accept the amendment because it would set a precedent and would have far-reaching implications for the issue of warrants. I was arguing that it was surely possible to distinguish between different kinds of warrants issued for different reasons, so there is no reason not to accept the amendment.

Elliot Morley: I repeat that I am not a legal expert, but from my knowledge of warrants I know that they are issued in different ways for different circumstances. What is proposed in this case is a fundamental difference—an unprecedented change in the way in which warrants are issued. It suggests that the farmer and DEFRA officials can stand in front of a magistrate and almost have a mini court scene. If there is to be such a facility, people must be given reasonable time to prepare, to make applications for legal aid, and all the various aspects of representation, which is unprecedented—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Elliot Morley: That can be done by a High Court judge, but it is a completely separate matter from the issue of a warrant by a magistrate. The hon. Gentleman, who is familiar with legal procedures, knows that to be true. If the positions were reversed, I do not believe that he would want to change fundamentally the precedents and the entire procedure for the issue of magistrates warrants. That is why we must reverse the amendments.
	There are amendments with which we do not disagree. Amendments Nos. 15,25, 38 and 68 expressly permit an inspector to take on to premises equipment that he or she requires. It may be presumed that an inspector will carry relevant equipment, but there is in theory the potential for disputes over whether an inspector may take equipment on to premises. The amendments are required to avoid any doubt.
	We support amendments Nos. 16, 18, 26, 28, 39, 41, 69 and 71. They deal with the requirement to give assistance to officials carrying out functions under the vaccination, slaughter and serology entry provisions, and with the issue of those from whom assistance can be requested. They again reflect concerns expressed by hon. Members. We do not want to make demands in respect of assisting officials that would be unreasonable or go beyond what an individual could be expected to provide. An inspector could not, therefore, make unreasonable demands on people who were not qualified to help, such as children or elderly people.
	We are, however, sympathetic to the suggestion that, for the sake of clarity, the powers should be limited to the occupier of the premises, the keeper of the animals or persons under the control of people in those two categories. In Committee, concerns were expressed about visiting friends or relatives, or people who merely happen to be on the premises and might be dragooned into providing assistance.
	We do not have that intention. We are prepared to amend the Bill to make that very clear and to remove the perceived risk of any bystanders or even children being requested or required to assist. Such an amendment also responds to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that, for the sake of clarity, the powers should be explicitly limited to the protection afforded by convention rights and in keeping with it.
	Lords amendments Nos. 17, 27, 40 and 70 deal with the requirement to give assistance to officials carrying out functions under the vaccination, slaughter and serology provisions. They are also designed to allay concerns that the requests for reasonable assistance would not involve unreasonable legal demands on people who are not qualified to help.
	The purpose of Lords amendments Nos. 19, 29, 42 and 72 is to ensure that, in the event of a warrant being granted, an inspector will serve a copy on the owner of the premises or, in their absence, leave a copy in a conspicuous place. That ensures that people are aware that the warrant has been issued. Given the weight of argument about the warrant conditions, we tabled the amendments to introduce more safeguards to ensure that the powers are subject to a rigorous and transparent test of reasonableness and that the overall balance of public interest takes proper account of the private interests and rights of the farmer.
	That last comment sums up the Government's approach to dealing with warrants and access. We firmly believe that the disease control measures are necessary. Let me emphasise again that we are not talking only about culling, but about vaccination and serology. The need for speed and very clear measures was recognised in the independent reports, and we are responding to that in the Bill. We are trying to reassure people that the powers would be applied only in a reasonable and proportionate way.
	I think that the House will agree that we have moved a long way in the amendments to reflect people's concerns. While we are trying to be as reasonable as we can to ensure the appropriate checks and balances and to be open and transparent, we cannot concede on setting down unprecedented legal changes in relation to the issuing of warrants by magistrates, although we have conceded a number of significant changes to reflect hon. Members' concerns.

John Hayes: The Minister is right to say that the Government have accepted a number of the suggestions made in the other place. They have done so in line with the suggestions made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It might be useful for the House to hear what the Committee said:
	Xlegislation which confers apparently wide powers or imposes apparently wide liabilities should make clear the limitations which are imposed by Convention rights. This is desirable in the interests of legal certainty and the notion of the rule of law, ideas which are central to effective guarantees of human rights."
	The Minister has acknowledged that some of the proposals that were made in the Lords amendments were necessary to comply with those demands. Having said that, there is still disagreement between the two Houses over the balance between the rights of the individual, to which the Minister rightly paid attention, and the need to effect the speedy delivery of measures to deal with a crisis such as the one from which we suffered recently.
	I will return in a moment to the point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) about the presentation of information to a justice of the peace. Before I do so, I emphasise that, when examining this group of amendments, we must bear it in mind that we are dealing with animals likely to be slaughtered as part of a ring-fenced cull—not with animals already infected in their own right—in circumstances in which a firebreak policy has been adopted around an infected area to protect the health of the wider national animal stock. As Lord Greaves pointed out in the other place, the issues involved in these amendments are pertinent to that point.
	The Minister and the whole House will be aware that the tactics relating to such culling caused immense controversy during the foot and mouth epidemic. Much of the bitterness that ensued is still felt in many rural communities, and many hon. Members will have farmers in their constituencies who still feel the effects very deeply. Given that, and given that the strategy for dealing with these outbreaks should be based on a partnership approach and on collaboration between the industry and the Government, the issue of warrants seems to be a particularly sensitive one. After all, we are talking about going on to someone's property and slaughtering healthy animals, albeit—arguably—for the necessary purpose of preventing the spread of disease.
	The National Farmers Union has commented on this issue. I do not want to become the lackey of the NFU, but it is important that we consider what it has to say. It states that it regrets
	Xthat the Government has decided to overturn the amendments . . . which provide for farmers to be informed of the reasons for the authorities applying for a warrant to a JP and to have an opportunity to make representations to a JP including the presentation of sworn information."
	That point was raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome when he questioned the Minister on the ability of a farmer to make such a representation directly to a justice of the peace. It is a matter of grave concern that a JP could issue a warrant on the basis of information from the Ministry that could not be challenged. If I were the Minister, I would want checks and balances here, because we are all fallible. Those checks and balances are important in regard to the hearing of the cases of people directly affected by the events that I am describing. The amendment would afford protection for individual farmers; but—more subtly, perhaps—it would give some protection to Ministers from their own powers.

David Heath: If a farmer had made representations to the district veterinary manager before a warrant was applied for, there would be a duty on the DVM to share that relevant information with a magistrate—not, as the Minister said, as a result of a request from the magistrate, but as part of his duty to the court. It would be a matter of disclosure.

John Hayes: In respect of the information being provided, that is the nub of the issue. The difference between us and the Government is that we believe that the farmer affected should have a right to present that information in sworn form to a magistrate. The Minister, however, while trying to be helpful, was suggesting that that would probably take place—that local circumstances would probably mean that the magistrate was aware of the information—without guaranteeing a firm and comprehensive right for a farmer to make that information available. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that matter later.

Angela Browning: There is another aspect. Farmers remain on-farm in the throes of a foot and mouth outbreak, so their ability to make personal representations is limited. They need a third party—either a lawyer or an NFU representative—so the right for information to be put before a magistrate is important, as it would be very unusual for farmers to come off-farm to deliver it in person.

John Hayes: That is right. Farmers, in addition to being physically isolated, would be intimidated, bewildered and frightened by such circumstances. Frankly, people who are running a business that is under threat, especially those who live on site, as farmers frequently do, might not be in a position to argue their case as comprehensively or persuasively as they otherwise might. All those considerations reinforce the spirit of partnership that I have recommended in the debate as the prerequisite to an effective national strategy.
	That is the core of the issue, which was addressed in the other place by a number of Members, not least my noble Friend Baroness Byford.

Elliot Morley: Before the hon. Gentleman refers to his quote, may I deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), which, again, is not unreasonable? Sometimes, it is important that people who are worried or under stress or who perhaps feel that they are too shy to make representations have someone to speak on their behalf, but there is no reason why NFU officials, or even a solicitor, could not make a case to the DVM on behalf of a particular farmer. There is nothing to prevent them from doing that, nor would we want to prevent them from doing it. Indeed, we want to encourage the NFU and other farming organisations to have the information to make such cases on behalf of their members if they so choose.

John Hayes: Once again, the Minister is helpful and co-operative, but he has not gone as far as the Lords would ask him to travel. In that respect, the Lords probably have it right and it may be useful to hear some of what they said. In particular, I shall quote the Minister's noble Friend Baroness Mallalieu, who speaks not only with legal training and expertise, but with a keen interest in and knowledge of countryside matters. Before I do so, I want to refer to the remarks of my noble Friend Baroness Byford.
	It is perhaps worth adding that my noble Friend has played an essential role in improving the Bill. The Minister, with his usual grace, will want to acknowledge that a bad Bill has been made better by the work done in the Lords, particularly by Conservative and, though it pains me to say it, Liberal Democrat Members of that House. In the words of Baroness Byford, they have made a bad Bill a better bad Bill. In a number of respects, she played a crucial role in that process. She said that it is surely reasonable that the magistrate should be satisfied that, in the first place, no one is challenging the interpretation that has been put to him by the Ministry, adding:
	XHow can he balance the inspector's view against that of the owner of the premises that the inspector requires access if he has not heard the other side?"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 November 2002; Vol. 640, c. 499-500.]
	That is a fair point, which was reinforced by a number of speakers in the Lords, not least Baroness Mallalieu. I hope that I may beg the House's indulgence and quote her at length, as she summed up the whole matter:
	XOne of the lasting legacies of the foot and mouth outbreak, which has led to continuing resentment, was the sense of powerlessness in the face of the authorities on the part of those faced with people attempting to get into their premises to slaughter their stock.
	I accept that a balance has to be struck between the need to control disease urgently and the rights of the owners of animals—the landowners and farmers. I appreciate that the paramount consideration in the Minister's mind—stung as he and his colleagues were by criticisms of their department—is that they should have the powers to act as swiftly as possible."
	We are not talking about diseased animals, however. We are talking about healthy animals that would be part of a ring-fence, firebreak approach to try to stop the spread of disease.
	Lady Mallalieu said that once the application had been made, the farmer should be given a chance to be heard. She summarised her argument thus:
	XBut surely, if you are going to destroy someone's healthy stock, which is the proposal here, you must give that person the opportunity to be heard at an early stage of the warrant." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 October 2002; Vol. 639, c. 1304.]
	We have heard from the Minister that there is the option of judicial review, and that of course exists; but, as a number of their lordships pointed out, the stock would be dead. The satisfaction of knowing that the due legal process had been followed would be of little use to those wanting to salvage their livelihoods or to deal with the immediate problem of someone going on to their land. I feel that immediacy is important in terms of access to a fair hearing and the due process of law.
	I mentioned the United States national animal health emergency system, the US equivalent of our emerging national contingency plan. As I said, it is based on the collaborative approach that I believe is essential if we are to achieve the objectives that are shared by the two Houses and the two sides of this Chamber. The action guidelines at the heart of the US plan include strengthening partnerships and networks, reinforcing federal, state and industry co-ordination, expanding training, education and public awareness and a strong emphasis on co-operation between industry and every level of government. That is why the issue of warrants is so salient. They are not just important in themselves; they are important because they symbolise an attitude and a balance.
	The real differences exist between a Government who, understandably, want legislation that delivers immediacy, effectiveness and a degree of predictability and control and an Opposition who, I suspect, want more flexibility. Flexibility is important. If we have learned anything from the dreadful business of 2001, we have learned that the disease strikes unexpectedly, progresses in a way that is hard to predict, changes its form and is dynamic; and that a new outbreak of this disease—or another disease entirely—would be just as unpredictable. Of course the contingency plan must take account of some factors of which we can be reasonably certain, but it must be flexible enough to allow Ministers, officials and all the proper agencies to react in a way that is appropriate to local conditions and circumstances that are particular to a disease at a certain point.
	Another difference between us relates to the balance between the rights and responsibilities of farmers and owners and the power of Government to deal with the disease. There must, of course, be a balance between those two imperatives, but the Opposition believe that rights are of paramount importance in the context of reassuring the industry about the need to adopt many of the necessary measures that are in the Bill and will be included in the national plan. Unless we have the necessary confidence and raise the morale of the industry, we will not have an easy passage in adopting and implementing some of the necessary changes on which I think we mostly agree.
	Those are the two salient differences between what was said in the other place and what the Minister is now saying and between what the Opposition believe and what the Government advocate. Warrants are at the very heart of that difference. For those reasons, it will be necessary for Opposition Members to oppose the Government's position and support that adopted by the other place.

Andrew George: I agree with the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) that it is regrettable that the Government have taken this view. I shall concentrate on the Government amendments that seek to delete those essential lines from the warrant amendments. Since the hon. Gentleman referred to co-operation between constructive Opposition parties, it is worth noting that the amendments were tabled by my noble Friends in another place. They provide for farmers to be informed of the reasons for the authorities applying to a magistrate for a warrant to enter premises and to have the opportunity to make representations to that magistrate, including the presentation of sworn information. The provisions are relatively straightforward.
	Part of the Minister's attempted justification for deleting those essential lines was, predictably, that the provision would produce unwanted delays in a process that requires speed. I shall return to that in a moment. His other main argument against it was that these measures, if they were allowed to remain in the Bill, would be unprecedented in the warrant-making process. The Minister needs to understand that this is not just about entry to premises; it is also about the destruction of the content of those premises.
	The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) made some rather telling legal points. I do not have a legal mind, but it is clear to me that not all new law has a precedent. Many new initiatives would never happen if we said that we could not do something because it had never been done before. One example is the Government handing over to the Bank of England the power to set interest rates. They did not refrain from doing that because it was unprecedented. The argument that anything that is unprecedented must not be done is fallacious and does not stand up to scrutiny.
	The Minister was aware of the amendment and had the opportunity to look at it in one of two ways. If he were genuinely concerned about the delay rather than the macho concern about the Bill being changed too much, he could have taken the view that it should be amended by the addition of further lines to clarify the time limits within which representations should be made, for example, rather than attempting to delete the essential provisions that give farmers a justifiable right to make representations in order to ensure that the magistrate hears both sides of the argument. Fundamentally it is all about ensuring that the magistrate, having been presented with the arguments, understands all the factors that pertain in the case of a particular holding. We believe that the principle is very important, and that the amendment should have been accepted.
	The Minister made the predictable point that the provision would result in delay, but much of the evidence shows that, had it been available at the time of the outbreak, the process might have been speeded up. Opposition to entry for initial testing is far less likely, and even less so if vaccination to live were the Government's preferred policy. Farmers would certainly be reassured. Delays in dealing with the crisis last year had far less to do with farm owners appealing against decisions, and more to do with operational incompetence.
	Evidence presented by the National Audit Office in its June 2002 report makes no reference to farmers holding up the system. The report states:
	XThe three main factors contributing to delays in slaughter were: shortages of resources: vets, valuemen, slaughtermen and equipment . . . Inspection and diagnosis protocols: Occasional delays may have occurred when laboratory results for the initial antigen test were inconclusive. There was also initially a requirement that during a report visit the Department's vet should check all livestock before carrying out a detailed clinical examination of the affected animal(s). In addition, at the beginning of the outbreak, vets were not permitted to undertake another visit within five days of visiting an infected premises. This constraint was addressed on 10 March 2001."
	There were also logistical factors:
	Xthe time needed to round up large flocks of sheep and inefficient early arrangements to ensure the co-ordinated arrival of valuers, slaughtermen and disposal teams."
	Those were the factors—not farmers making clear objections to entry on to their farms.
	Farmers were prepared to work with the Government, rather than refuse permission to enter their farms. The report continues:
	XSome farmers challenged the contiguous cull: This took the form, on occasions, of refusing access to premises, which sometimes forced the Department to take out a High Court injunction. More commonly, farmers formally requested the Department to reconsider its decision to cull while there were also some challenges in court."
	The Minister does not properly understand the point that was well made by the hon. Member for South Holland and the Deepings: one lesson that we must learn from the last outbreak is the need properly to re-establish trust between the Government and the industry. Page 37 of the Anderson report states:
	"Contingency planning is not just producing a written document. Rather, it is about putting in place the systems, processes and culture to respond effectively to crises. Above all, it about a shared sense of ownership and purpose across the relevant stakeholder community."
	It is important that that principle be carried through by ensuring that, in cases where a warrant is secured, farmers have a right to respond.
	Fundamentally, given that the Minister agreed in Committee that entry to premises to slaughter animals was different from other situations where the power to enter was sought and that, ideally, farmers should have the kind of rights contained in the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords, I urge him to reconsider his position and accept that the change that we propose, even if unprecedented, is an acceptable and progressive measure, which the House should support.

Richard Bacon: I particularly agreed with the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) about one of the first points he made—the suggestion that nothing should be done because doing something would create a precedent. Of course it is true that everything is unprecedented until it is done for the first time. That seemed a curious argument to come from a new Labour Minister. The hon. Gentleman speculated that I did not want to effect such a fundamental change, but I have news for him: I came into the House precisely to effect fundamental change, and one day Conservative Members will have the opportunity to do precisely that. I shall remind him that I said that; I am very assiduous in keeping quotes, as he knows.
	To understand this business about warrants and entry, it is important to go back to the fundamental basis of the Bill. I was rudely interrupted by the rules of the House on this point when I was the last hon. Member to speak on Third Reading and had to confine my remarks to the remaining one minute and 45 seconds. We have to reflect on the fact that the Government introduced the Bill because, during the foot and mouth crisis, they killed millions of healthy animals that they had no legal right to kill and no scientific basis for killing.
	Paragraph 3(1) of schedule 3 to the Animal Health Act 1981—the relevant provision that refers to the Minister's powers to kill animals—states:
	XThe Minister may, if he thinks fits, in any case cause to be slaughtered . . . any animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease, or suspected of being so affected; and . . . any animals which are or have been in the same field, shed, or other place, or in the same herd or flock, or other in contact with animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease, or which appear to the Minister to have been in any way exposed to the infection of foot-and-mouth disease."
	In other words, the Minister had to have some grounds for thinking that the animals were infected before he could kill them. He had no basis in statute law for exercising the slaughter. We have to ask, therefore, whether any basis had developed in case law to undertake the cull. The answer is that, no, there was not.
	I commend to the House an excellent speech made by Lord—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The question that the hon. Gentleman should ask himself is about the warrant conditions. His remarks so far indicate that he is going wider than the ambit of Lords Amendment No. 14.

Richard Bacon: I respect what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if you will bear with me very briefly, I hope to show that these matters are intimately related because they go back to the non-existent trust between farmers and the Government. That lack of trust causes the power of entry that the Minister seeks to cause so much suspicion among farmers.
	The fact is that there was no statutory basis for the cull; neither was there a basis in case law. Lord Willoughby de Broke referred to three relevant cases. The Government won the first two—that of Westerhall Farms v. Scottish Ministers and MAFF v. Winslade—but, crucially, not all the required scientific information was available to the courts. However, the Government lost the first case based on correct science—MAFF v. Upton—in which all the scientific information available to the Department was available to the court.
	In his speech, Lord Willoughby de Broke said that, if the Minister was looking for a bedrock case for or against the continuous cull, he could find it in the Upton case. In that case, Dr. Donaldson's scientific evidence was produced by the defending solicitors and won the day for the defendants.

John Hayes: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Richard Bacon: Of course.

John Hayes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I imagine that he is making the case—and he is doing it very well—that there is an intimate relationship between the lack of trust that farmers feel for the action taken by the Government in culling healthy animals and the Government's proposals for warrants and entry conditions. My hon. Friend suggests that farmers will mistrust the warrants in the form that the Government propose. The Lords tried to amend the warrants, but the Government clearly do not want to accept those amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) has provided an escape route, and I hope that the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) will take it. He has to be concise when he puts his argument, or he will be ignoring the ruling that I gave earlier.

Richard Bacon: I am utterly serious when I say that I am not looking for an escape route, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) has precisely enunciated the argument that I wanted to make. The Government forfeited farmers' trust because MAFF officials went to farms and slaughtered healthy animals even though their actions had no basis in statute, case law or science.
	Various hon. Members have noted the importance of farmers being represented in a warrant hearing, and one might be able to give the Minister's case more credence were it not for the experience of what happened. Farmers generally have no trust in the Minister's proposals because of the way in the which the Government acted during the crisis. That was precisely the point that I was in the process of making. In his speech, Lord Willoughby de Broke asked why the Ministry never fought a case for an injunction to enable a contiguous cull to proceed after the decision in the Upton case was given. The reason was that the Ministry knew that it had been proceeding on a wholly inadequate basis.
	That is the context for our consideration of the proposal that there should be no right in advance of slaughter for a farmer to go before a justice of the peace and contest a warrant.

Bill Wiggin: Earlier, the Minister commented on the number of cases that the DVM upheld. That gave me cause for concern, as farmers are worried about whether warrants will arrive before or after animals are culled. I hope that the Minister, when he closes the debate, will say whether the cases to which he did not draw attention were also relevant. Does my hon. Friend think that farmers' human rights may be infringed by the proposal? Farmers who go to court must have a reason for doing so, and it is not fair to proceed without them.

Richard Bacon: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Government have had the grace to admit that they cannot abolish judicial review for administrative action, but their proposals seem to mean that big-ticket farmers with deep wallets and access to big lawyers can go straight to the High Court to secure an injunction. The Minister will be able to do nothing about that, as people have a legal right to obtain injunctions. Hundreds of people got satisfaction from the DVM, but that does not alter the fact that MAFF, as the Department then was, exceeded its powers and acted in excess of what a court would have considered reasonable. They may have been a minority, but many people were involved in such cases, which have been the subject of much comment and which have caused a great deal of mistrust.
	Our courts are too full already, and we do not want them to become any more clogged up, but farmers should not have to have deep wallets so that they can take out a High Court injunction. Farmers should be able, in a simple and short procedure, to go before the magistrate when the warrant is being applied for and make their case. As I said to the Minister earlier, one could believe this to be a heinous alteration to the way in which warrants were issued if one were talking about big criminals. We would not want to give drugs dealers the right to contest a warrant—[Interruption]—well, the law could be changed. We do not want to give big drugs dealers the right to contest the warrant before a judge. If they knew that there was about to be a drugs bust, they would be long gone. As the Minister said, we are not talking about big criminals.

Bill Wiggin: One of the problems throughout the debate is that it seems as though the Government are always blaming the farmers for the entire foot and mouth crisis. My hon. Friend's point emphasises once again that it is difficult, when discussing this, to distinguish between proper criminals who deal in drugs and people who are desperately trying to eke out a living farming livestock without having their stock slaughtered.

Richard Bacon: Whether they meant it or not—and I am willing to accept that that at the highest levels of MAFF they did not mean it—the Government's actions made many law-abiding people feel criminal, when they were struggling to keep themselves afloat and seeing their farm income dropping through the floor.
	In conclusion, the Government's basis for the slaughter was illegal and scientifically flawed. The basis of the Bill is to repair that deficit but in the context of the lack of trust created by the Government through their own actions, it is entirely reasonable to expect a farmer to be able to contest a warrant.

Elliot Morley: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to say a few words about some of the points that have been made.
	I recognise that this is an important aspect of the Bill. I repeat that the Government are trying to be reasonable and proportionate. We want to reassure people and ensure that these measures are used only when necessary. We want to ensure that there is a right of representation to the DVM and that farmers are aware of that right. Indeed, we have no objection to people making representations on their behalf. We have accepted other changes, such as retaining warrants for 12 months. Hon. Members have referred to the dating on the warrants and how they would be applied. That is in reflection of legitimate cases.
	I am very aware of the United States system to which the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) referred. Indeed, aspects of that system are being built into some of our responsibilities. The hon. Gentleman and I seem to be talking different languages, but I agree with him about the need for maximum flexibility. The whole point of the Bill is to give our veterinary scientists and divisional managers maximum flexibility in dealing with any future outbreak.
	Let me say to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George)—and I stress again that I am not a legal expert—that I have a distinct feeling that it would be difficult to set time limits for representations if there was a right for individuals to make representations against the issuing of a warrant. I am pretty sure that if the time scale is too short it will be challenged by lawyers who will say that they do not have enough time to make their case. That is inevitable. If the time available is too long, people will simply utilise the maximum time leading to delays and restricting flexibility.
	There was a range of reasons for delays during the last epidemic, which we understand. We are trying to address that and we are willing, as I have always been, to consider a range of options in this case. However, I am convinced, because of the advice that I have received from the highest level, that this proposal would set a precedent that we cannot concede in relation to the changes in the issuing of warrants.

John Hayes: rose—

Elliot Morley: I cannot give way, I am afraid, because I am about to conclude.
	The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) seems to have an obsession with claims and conspiracy theories about healthy animals being culled. Many of the animals that were culled were developing the disease. There may well be a case for fire break culls in the future, although it is not my preferred option—I would much rather use vaccination. However, there must be flexibility. We recognise the points about people's trust and concerns. That is why we have made these changes to the Bill, which I hope that right hon. and hon. Members recognise. I hope that they also recognise that although we understand the reasons for the Lords amendments, they go too far in setting an unwelcome precedent that we cannot ignore and cannot accept.
	It being five hours after the commencement of proceedings, Mr Speaker, proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings to be concluded at that hour pursuant to Order [this day].
	Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 14 agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 14, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7
	 — 
	Slaughter: Power of Entry

Lords amendment: No. 22, in Page 4, line 33, leave out from beginning to end of line 1 on page 5 and insert—
	X(3) The second condition is that each of the following applies to the occupier of the premises —
	(a) he has been informed of the decision to seek entry to the premises and of the reasons for that decision;
	(b) he has failed to allow entry to the premises on being requested to do so by an inspector;
	(c) he has been informed of the decision to apply for the warrant and of the reasons for that decision including a copy of the sworn information;
	(d) he has been provided with an opportunity to make representations to the justice of the peace about whether the warrant should be issued;
	(e) he has been provided with the opportunity to present sworn information in person or in writing to the justice of the peace who is to consider the application for a warrant."
	(4) The third condition is that—
	(a) the premises are unoccupied or the occupier is absent and (in either case) notice of intention to apply for the warrant has been left in a conspicuous place on the premises, or
	(b) an application for admission to the premises or the giving of notice of intention to apply for the warrant would defeat the object of entering the premises."
	Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: (a)—[Mr. Morley], Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 172.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 35 and Govt amendment (a) thereto agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 15 to 21, 23 to 34 and 36 to 44 agreed to.
	Lords amendment: No. 46.

Elliot Morley: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	The Government agree that we must take action to minimise the risk of importing animal diseases that have the potential to do serious damage. That is why we are taking action to tackle the problem of illegal imports of meat and meat products, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spelt out in some detail the kind of measures that we are taking. The illegal imports action plan covers a wide range of measures. It is expected that future action to combat illegal imports will be informed by the outcome of the assessment of disease risk and a review of how import controls can be better arranged.
	In the course of the debate, we have recognised that in relation to reducing disease risk we need to take action on a number of fronts, which we have been discussing in detail, and we recognise that points of entry is one of them. That is why we take the matter seriously and are introducing these measures. In that respect, we agree with the Lords amendment.

John Hayes: I shall speak briefly on this matter, as we wish to move on to others.
	The Government have generously and wisely conceded to the demands of the House of Lords in this respect. That is important, as illegal meat imports are a massive problem in this country, which is widely acknowledged in the House and was mentioned earlier when we debated the response to the Anderson inquiry. Indeed, according to the Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee report published in March 2002, the trade in unfit and illegal meat is the third most lucrative illegal enterprise in this country, netting more than #1 billion worth of trade per year. The primary reason for that is lack of implementation and the wrangling that takes place between a variety of agencies. We were pleased to hear earlier that that will be dealt with by drawing all of these matters under the auspices of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.
	In conclusion, import controls must be an integral part of any disease control strategy. At the moment, it appears to many farmers that the 20-day rule adversely affects their ability to do their business properly and fruitfully. While they are being strangled, however, airports and other points of entry do not have effective checks in place. It is therefore vitally important that we turn our attention to meat imports in a meaningful, properly resourced way.

Bill Wiggin: We are debating animal health, but I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that we could expose ourselves to diseases such as Ebola if the promises on Customs and Excise are not fulfilled.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend, with his usual perspicacity, makes the point effectively. It is important to realise that it is not simply a case of illegality; there is also the great danger of a public health risk. The Minister and the Secretary of State have acknowledged that. The relevant authorities are going to be brought together to address the problem. We hope that that will be properly resourced and proper information will be provided. We also hope that the conversion engenders public confidence and the confidence of the industry because such matters need to be taken more seriously, as the Lords made clear.

Andrew George: I, too, congratulate the Government on accepting the amendment tabled by my noble Friend Lord Livsey. They have been receptive to strong arguments. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned: had the Government pushed the Bill through at the speed they intended, such an important amendment might not have been made. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) on his ten-minute Bill of a few months ago which would have established the same measure. I congratulate the Government on listening to the arguments and considering the seriousness of the problem. For the reasons set out by hon. Members and in the expansive debate in another place, it is essential that more stringent controlled surveillance and monitoring is put in place.
	I have just one point to add. Although I welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State that the measures will come under the overall control of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, the fact is that the most recent surveys by independent bodies, such as the National Farmers Union survey this summer, show that there is tremendous leakage through airports and ports. It is an extremely serious matter. I hope that the Minister's Department will not wash its hands of the problem and leave it to the Treasury and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise to sort out. The Department needs to be directly engaged to ensure that proper controls are followed through and that every effort is made to stop the illegal trade, which represents a significant bio-security risk.

David Drew: Lest there be no misunderstanding, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) and I tabled the original amendment on imports. I am glad that my hon. Friend has seen the wisdom of agreeing to the measure, albeit a year later. The subject is important. Since the amendment appeared in its original incarnation, the Select Committee report has been published highlighting the need for action.
	I have a simple point to make. On bearing down on illegal meat imports and other imports that could damage our food chain, we must remember that it is not the person who brings in such products on a casual basis that causes most concern. Those people who are into the serious trade should worry us most. They might not even use the main points of entry. We need to ensure that policies are in place to deal with them.
	I am pleased that the provision has been accepted. I know that discussions took place behind the scenes. I am glad that my hon. Friend has seen fit to do the decent thing and make it clear that the Government are going to deal with such issues. We need to tackle the hard edge of the problem. Those people on the soft edge act more in error than anything else. We can do more at the ports, but we need to get hold of the people who are importing such products as part of a serious and growing trade because they threaten our food trade now and in the future.

Angela Browning: The hon. Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) will recall that my colleagues and I voted for the hon. Gentleman's amendment in Committee, by which time he had withdrawn it, or voted against it. Indeed, the Minister dismissed all attempts in Committee at amendments to improve and strengthen import controls. In fact, I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman accepted any amendments to the Bill in this place.
	I remind Ministers that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) pointed out to them in recent weeks some of the plans and preparations that have been put in place by some of our European partners since the outbreak of foot and mouth in the United Kingdom last year. I am a little disappointed, therefore, despite the welcome announcement by the Secretary of State today of the ban on personal meat imports and the hon. Gentleman's promise to review annually the way in which controls are being put into place. This is not rocket science—I suspect that much of it has to do with the political will to get the resources from the Treasury to put in place effective import controls.
	If the Minister travels to Dublin, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury and I did during the summer recess, he will find that Dublin airport has put in place amnesty bins since the outbreak, and the Irish had only one case of foot and mouth at the same time as us. I tabled a written question to the Minister on amnesty bins only last week. Today, I received the reply that he and his hon. Friends are Xconsulting". An amnesty bin is not rocket science and it does not need masses of consultation. If the Irish Government have managed to put them in place, why have we not managed to do it?

Elliot Morley: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Browning: I will finish my questions, as the Minister may wish to deal with them together.
	When one gets off the plane in Dublin, one is immediately struck by the bold notices—not some little thing around the carousel—that invite people who have recently been on a farm to go to a centre where they can decontaminate their shoes and so forth. The Irish Government have set up their own office in Dublin airport since foot and mouth last year, so that they have veterinary officials on site to deal with any problems.
	The tardiness of our Government, when other countries have clearly had the will to put measures in place, does not commend the measures that the Minister has announced, on which he says that he will report annually. He should get those measures in place. That is the priority. We will look forward to the annual reports, but this Government have a track record of producing reports on just about everything, full of spin, and it is the substance that we want—it is the beef. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman now, if he still wishes to intervene.

Elliot Morley: indicated dissent.

Angela Browning: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is going to pass on that offer.
	The Government have an important part to play. They have chided the farming community and legislated to ensure that it plays its part. We now want to see some substance, not just reports.

Adam Price: I, too, congratulate the Government on accepting the amendment. As the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said, the issue is vitally important. At the very least, the report will maintain a focus on the issue.
	The Government have shown some complacency and laxity on the subject of illegal meat imports, which contrasts with their initiatives on controls on domestic farmers. We welcome the action plan, but a few posters and two trained sniffer dogs at Heathrow airport will not be enough to get to grips with this vitally important problem. Let us contrast that with the actions of the Irish Government and with other Governments throughout the world, for example, Canada, Australia and the United States, where the issue has been on the agenda for many decades.
	We know to our cost the consequences of complacency on this issue.
	In evidence presented to the European Parliament inquiry on foot and mouth, Clive Lawrence, the chief executive of the Heathrow-based freight company Ciel Logistics, said that he notified the Government in a letter to the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of the dangers posed by illegal meat imports to animal and human health, including the risk of foot and mouth. The letter was dated 10 May 2000, more than six months before the foot and mouth outbreak. We cannot afford such complacency from this Government or any other again. Clearly, there are issues of resources and lessons that can be drawn right across the world. At least the report will allow us, we hope, to assess the effectiveness of the measures that the Government have put in place already, and to develop a new policy dynamic whereby we can address the issues.
	As has been said, meat smuggling is an extremely lucrative trade, with almost zero risk, compared with other forms of smuggling, and with a very high return. Some of the measures suggested, such as on-the-spot fines, will not get to grips with highly organised criminal gangs. Of course, couriers often have no money. We need the report, which it will allow us to probe the effectiveness of the Government's plans. The UK remains heavily exposed to imports from regions where animal diseases, including foot and mouth, are endemic. I hope that the Government's acceptance of the amendment is a signal that, for the first time, they intend to take the matter of illegal meat imports seriously, so that we can have some confidence about food security and the future of farming in this country.

Richard Bacon: I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the amendment, but I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said, the preparation of an annual report is not the whole story, and that just as we were right last year about the need for a report, we are also correct about the need for tougher action.
	I spent several hours yesterday with Customs and Excise at Dover. I wish that the Minister would go there and see for himself, spend a little time at the nation's airports, and understand that we are not making these arguments trivially or lightly. We all welcome the steps that have been taken and the publicity campaign, but more needs to be done.
	I shall make one other point, concerning the nature of open government. The Government's decision to accept the amendment and allow a report to Parliament once a year is indicative of a wider spread of information, which we must welcome. The Drummond report was not published, but was available to the Ministry in January 1999, and set out in brutal detail the Government's unpreparedness. A presentation to the state veterinary service national management meeting on 5 December 2000, dealing with the control of pigs, stated:
	XNever look on the bright side in a notifiable disease emergency! Always assume that the worst will happen and then you are pleasantly surprised if it doesn't."
	If those warnings had been available not just to departmental civil servants, but publicly, it is difficult to believe that the Government would not have been better prepared when foot and mouth hit in February last year. More information is essential.

Elliot Morley: I welcome the fact that most hon. Members who have spoken recognise that the Government have accepted the amendment, which follows on from a commitment that I gave in Committee, after representations from my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ), that the matter was certainly worth further consideration , and that we would return to it. That commitment has been honoured.
	I understand the points made by the hon. Members for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), and for St. Ives (Andrew George), my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, and the hon. Members for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) and for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon). I can tell the hon. Member for South Norfolk that I spend a great deal of time hanging around airports, sometimes longer than I would like, and of course I look at what we are doing in this country and what is being done in other countries.
	Hon. Members should understand that there are issues of risk assessment involved. We could spend a large amount of resources and study what other countries are doing, but sometimes it is more a matter of image and perception—I do not underestimate the importance of the message that we give people—than of being effective. Resources can sometimes be allocated in ways that do not achieve maximum effectiveness, which is why we have commissioned an independent study by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency to identify the biggest risks. It may well be that the biggest risks are in large-scale illegal meat smuggling. We have seized shipments and imprisoned people involved in meat smuggling. I think that that is the first time that people have been imprisoned for such an offence. We take firm action in enforcing the law.
	Furthermore, a lot of the work that we are doing and which the Secretary of State mentioned is not properly seen by people in our country. We assess where risk is located. For example, when people in high-risk countries apply for visas to visit our country, they receive a leaflet explaining the risks and the UK measures and regulations by which they must abide. That has been backed up by videos provided by air companies with our co-operation, as well as information leaflets and posters and a range of work, and not least the increased powers for enforcement and inspection and the streamlining of the inspection through Customs and Excise so as to involve one point of contact. I appreciate the broad welcome that those announcements have received in the House.
	We take these issues seriously and I welcome the annual assessment, as it is important that we consider the progress that is made. Hon. Members should understand, however, that we also have to put risks in perspective. Border entry posts are important, but they are but one of a range of issues relating to minimising disease risks. However, we take all the issues seriously and we will take action where it is needed.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendment: No. 47.

Elliot Morley: I beg to move Government amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, leave out lines 12 to 29.
	We are not disagreeing with the argument that there is a need for effective contingency planning. We have no argument with that. Indeed, the 2001 epidemic demonstrated very early on that the contingency plans that we had in place were clearly inadequate for dealing with an epidemic of that scale and type. We freely acknowledge that. Our experience in that epidemic has resulted in the rewriting of contingency plans by every country, as it is recognised that a complete rethink is required in organisational terms and in the way in which the matter is addressed.
	The main purpose of the provision as it was originally drafted was to provide an assurance that the Government are serious about being prepared for any possible future outbreak of FMD. We recognise that various inquiry reports have highlighted that good contingency planning and better preparedness are crucial at the outset of any future disease outbreak. That is why we have taken immediate action to update our interim contingency arrangements for FMD and why we have updated them again in the light of the Government's response to the two independent reports. We want to develop the arrangements further in consultation with the industry, stakeholders and interested parties to address the wide range of issues thrown up in 2001.
	As policies develop, the plans will be reviewed and amended accordingly. We do not want the documents merely to assume that once we have put in place a contingency plan, it will be permanent and will cover all the points raised. Even if people have signed up to such a plan, we do not accept that that is enough, and we recognise that any contingency plan will have to be periodically reviewed to ensure that it is up to date. We must accept and develop proposals concerning, for example, the administration of vaccination, which we discussed earlier. That would ensure that issues such as vaccination could be integrated into an overall plan that relates to all aspects of disease control policy. That provision has also been built into the contingency plan, again reflecting the recommendations made in the independent reports.
	Contingency planning needs to cover the control of diseases using a range of measures, including culling and/or emergency vaccination as appropriate, and to take account of the context of relevant EU legislation. I anticipate that, when we have had extensive consultation, the completed contingency plan will be laid before Parliament for the first time in the spring.
	The incidence of diseases worldwide and their possible occurrence in the UK will also contribute to establishing the priority to be given to extending the provisions of the contingency plan from foot and mouth disease to cover other exotic diseases. A number of hon. Members have spoken of the risk posed by a range of diseases. We take that risk extremely seriously. We are therefore putting in place a risk-based approach, and our aim is to target our resources based on what we know about the risk posed by different exotic diseases. The most effective way to make the best use of the available resources is to identify exactly where the risks are, and to determine where to apply the resources so as to deal with those risks.
	The requirements that have been added to the original Bill by proposed new sections 14A(2) and 14A(3) do not relate to the purpose of the clause, which is to define a requirement for a contingency plan to deal with occurrences of disease. On that, we have no disagreement. The proposed new sections would not allow us to target our resources appropriately. Proposed new section 14A(2) would require us to expend a great deal of resources in relation to all the diseases in schedule 2A, which is included in the Bill to deal, more than anything else, with issues of deliberate infection, rather than to distinguish between the diseases in terms of an assessment of the risk occurrences in the UK.
	We need to carry out significant worldwide surveillance for exotic disease, and this already takes place. The relevant information is available from international sources such as the OIE. The risk to the UK comes not from countries that report honestly to the OIE, but from those that do not report their disease situation or that have no effective mechanism for diagnosing or reporting disease, and in which, by definition, a three-yearly review would be completely valueless because there is no available information. That is not to say, however, that the concerns expressed in the other place are not being addressed. We take them very seriously. However, the additional provisions—proposed new sections 14A(2) and 14A(3)—are more relevant to other activities of government, such as the prevention of disease.
	The Government announced earlier this afternoon their response to the FMD inquiry reports, and it is in that response that we have set out how we will take forward work on the recommendations that have been made. That is where the broader issues of strategy have properly been addressed. I do not, therefore, consider the proposed new sections 14A(2) and 14A(3) appropriate in the context of the contingency plan provisions. That is why I am seeking to remove them from the Bill. I am doing so not because we have any objection to a public commitment to proper contingency planning—or to ensuring that those contingency plans are properly consulted on and that people have every opportunity to participate in that consultation—but because the provisions are unnecessary. They do not sit well in the Bill. There is no major disagreement on this, but, if we are to have proper legislation, it should be just that. In that regard, the proposals are unnecessary and I invite the House to reject them.

John Hayes: The Minister says that he is committed to a national contingency plan, but, without being ungenerous, I must point out that there would not have been a provision for a national contingency plan, or an import clause or a biosecurity clause, in the Bill, were it not for the amendments tabled by Conservative—in particular—and Liberal Democrat peers during the course of the Bill through the other place and in Committee. If the Minister looks sceptical about that, I shall remind him that it was my noble Friend Baroness Byford who tabled a strategy amendment in Committee, thus facilitating those elements.
	It is also important to point out, when considering the contingency plan, the nature of the plan that was in place when we endured the catastrophe of the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak. That plan had gaps, and it had not been shared or rehearsed outside the state veterinary service. Neither had it been tested. It was described by the Government's own report on the issue as follows:
	XThe first responses to the early cases were not fast enough or effectively coordinated".
	Yet the Government's memo to the inquiry stated that
	Xcomprehensive contingency plans were in place".
	The inquiry, however,
	Xdid not find this to be so".
	It found the plans to be limited in scope, out of date and not integrated into a national programme of rehearsal and testing. It also stated:
	XBetter preparation . . . would have done much to limit the scale of the crisis."
	Brigadier Alex Birtwistle, who led the Army's handling of last year's outbreak, said that
	Xthere was a startling level of incompetence at every level...we're one of the 10 richest nations, we're a legitimate nuclear power and we can't get a few trucks into Cumbria."
	That is what the soldier who led the exercise said, so it is right and proper that the Government have concluded, albeit belatedly, that we need a properly co-ordinated, cohesive national plan to deal with such outbreaks.
	The contingency plan for last year's outbreak was inadequate, but such planning is surely essential to limit the scale of animal disease outbreaks. The Lords are merely emphasising that and aiming for an extension in scope. That scope needs to be broad because, as the Minister has acknowledged, disease can be introduced to this country from other places.
	Many diseases are rife. For example, we know that blue tongue disease is well established in the United States and other diseases are well established in parts of Europe. We need to be aware of them, as they could be introduced to this country. We certainly need a European and worldwide perspective on the incidence of those diseases; the likelihood of this country being affected by them; and how we would respond. The Lords simply ask for a three-yearly review of the worldwide incidence of each disease referred to in the measure, which I think the whole House would acknowledge is appropriate, and that that review be debated.
	Members might argue that the review should be undertaken more frequently than every three years; I would certainly not want it to occur less frequently. Neither would I want, as the Minister suggested, to rely on existing practice rather than support what the Lords are trying to achieve, which is a more holistic perspective than that which the Government seem willing to adopt.
	That is particularly important given what we have said about the volume and nature of illegal meat imports, which, in themselves, are potential sources of disease, and because more people are travelling. There is enormous growth in the number of visitors to this country and there are all sorts of increased risks of disease being introduced. The Anderson report says that we should be producing
	Xnot just a written document."
	Rather, we should put
	Xin place the systems, processes and a culture to respond effectively to crises."
	That comment, which was referred to by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), lies at the heart of the need to draw up, implement and test an effective contingency plan.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, especially as I am sure he agrees that one problem when the foot and mouth outbreak hit was that so many people did not know what to do. One advantage to the Lords amendment is that the plan would have to be circulated to all the parties that could possibly help. That means that many more people would know exactly what to do, which would make the Government's job a lot easier.

John Hayes: Part of such a national plan must be the dissemination of information in an easily accessible and comprehensible form. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that such information needs to be spread not just to those directly affected—people in the industry—but to all those who may have contact with livestock during their work or leisure activities. The more knowledge we can spread on risk and its avoidance, the more likely we are to avoid a catastrophe of the proportions that we unfortunately suffered in 2001.
	It seems to me, however, that we need to go further even than my hon. Friend suggests. We need to expand training, education and public awareness. We certainly need to support research and animal disease diagnostics. We need to reinforce the links between the Government, local government, other agencies and the industry to deliver a co-ordinated response. We need to strengthen that network to deliver a co-ordinated approach and we need to develop and, perhaps most importantly, test emergency preparation and disaster recovery plans.
	Part of the problem from which we suffered while enduring that disease and that epidemic was the inadequate testing of the plans that were in place. A disaster recovery plan needs to be not only tested, but dynamic and flexible enough to be changed and applied in ways appropriate to the local conditions, the particular nature of the disease and its progress.
	The Government seem to have belatedly concluded that we need a contingency plan. They seem to have taken on board a number of suggestions made in Committee and in the other place. But they have yet to grasp fully the need for a wide-ranging contingency plan that will take full account of all the diseases that may affect our farmers and their livestock.
	I believe that, in respect of both the international dimension and the dissemination of information, the Lords amendments are useful and helpful additions to the plan. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting them and rejecting the Minister's objections to them.

Elliot Morley: The part of Lords amendment No. 47 that we want to delete has been dealt with by our commitment in the Bill—approved by the House—in relation to vaccination.
	We accept, and I have conceded, that our existing contingency plan was not adequate in the circumstances, but it is not true that it was not tested. One of the many myths that were circulated was that the Government were aware of the disease before it was reported. It started because one of our divisional officers was ringing around checking the prices of such things as timber, as part of a contingency exercise. Moreover, the plan was reviewed as recently as 2000 in connection with the European Union review. We accept, however, that all those reviews and tests were not adequate. We are therefore approaching the matter in a much more sophisticated way.
	We also accept that all contingency planning must be made public. Some Conservative Members were very critical of the Government when we made public our contingency plan for BSE in sheep. One or two of them said that it was a disgrace that we had put our plans into the public domain, because it might affect sheepmeat sales and upset the industry and consumers. [Interruption.] I have a long memory, and I assure Conservative Members that there was a great deal of criticism when we made the plan public. That is, however, the right thing to do. We also recently made public our contingency plan for blue tongue virus, so that people could comment, and we are committed to doing the same in regard to such issues in future.

David Drew: Obviously, a national contingency plan is only as good as what can be done within the nation. I know that the point of such plans is the need to consider what is happening abroad, and I know about the OIE process of recognising diseases that are prevalent elsewhere, but this is all to do with intelligence, and I wonder about the extent to which we would share that openly. We must have some certainty that we can act before people do things that we would not want them to do.

Elliot Morley: I entirely agree. That is another aspect of the Lords' amendments to which I object. To be fair, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) recognised that a three-yearly review might not be appropriate—that the period might be too long. In fact, I have made it clear that in many cases it would be irrelevant. Legislation should not contain elements that, although well-meaning, are irrelevant and already covered by our responses—our response in the Bill, our commitment to making contingency plans public for consultation and our detailed response to independent inquiries, which we have also made public and made available to the House. In that respect, we accept the thrust of the arguments. We do not disagree with the comments that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings made in relation to contingency planning and contingency arrangements, but they contradict his earlier point that contingency plans must be dynamic documents. We need to be able to respond and update them. In that sense, it is not appropriate to write contingency arrangements into the Bill as that makes it difficult to update and modernise them. When making primary legislation, it is important to be clear about its objectives, functions and role. Proper detailed contingency plans and arrangements can be made without writing them into the Bill because of the need for updating and flexibility, for involving people and for ensuring that there is proper contribution and comment.
	For those reasons, I do not think that there is a great deal of disagreement among hon. Members. We all agree on the need for proper, detailed contingency planning. That commitment will be clear in the Bill, which has been amended during its passage through the House. I ask the House not to include in the Bill irrelevant, unworkable measures that cannot react to changing circumstances. That is not good legislation, nor was it the intention of the movers of the amendment, who I am sure were well-motivated. I therefore urge the House to reject it and to support the Government amendment.

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 164.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to [Special Entry].
	Lords Amendment No.65 and Government amendment (a) thereto agreed to.
	It being more than six hours after the commencement of business, Mr. Speaker put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
	Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.
	Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment No. 13: Mr. Nick Ainger, Andrew George, Mr. John Hayes, Mr. Elliot Morley and Mr. Andy Reed; Mr. Elliot Morley to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Woolas.]
	To withdraw immediately.
	Reasons for disagreeing to Lords amendment No. 13 reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

PETITIONS
	 — 
	Iraq

David Heath: I have pleasure in presenting a petition collected by my constituent Mrs. Rachel von Kimmelmann of 4, Thornwall Way, Wincanton. It expresses the concern of a number my constituents at the prospect of a pre-emptive war against Iraq. I have attempted to express the same view in this House.
	The petition states:
	To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
	The Humble Petition of Residents of Somerton and From and others sheweth
	That a pre-emptive war against Iraq would be both immoral and in contravention of the United Nations Charter, and would have unjust an unacceptable consequences for innocent civilians living in the Middle East.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House urge the Government to work with the United Nations and to use its influence to encourage the use of all peaceful and diplomatic means to reincorporate the country of Iraq into the international community.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	To lie upon the Table.

Drugs

Adrian Flook: Before I present this petition, I should like to pay tribute to the Taunton Times and to Gillian Powell for working with me to raise the 1,000 signatures of constituents from Taunton and Taunton Dene. The aim is that all drugs should be made freely available to all patients on the basis of clinical need alone.
	The petition states:
	To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
	The humble petition of the concerned readers of the Taunton Times and residents of the constituency of Taunton in Somerset sheweth
	That the Xwonder drug" STI571 (Glivec), which has been shown to cure seven out of 10 cases of chronic myeloid leukaemia, was already widely available in western Europe and the United States of America; welcomes that it is now freely available to all those as recommended by their clinicians; and that there should be no financial consideration for any other drugs as to whether a patient should or should not receive treatment.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House shall urge the Secretary of State to make it his policy to ensure that all drugs are made freely available to all patients on the basis of clinical need alone.
	Your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
	To lie upon the Table.

Food Supplements

Alan Reid: I wish to present a petition signed by 100 of my constituents.
	The petition states:
	The petition of Consumers for Health Choice and its supporters declares that consumers in the United Kingdom have, for many years, maintained good health by choosing to take safe vitamin and mineral supplements and herbal remedies, and fears that the European food supplements directive and proposed European directive on traditional herbal medicinal products would severely restrict the number and range of such products on general retail sale in the future.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons requires that the Secretary of State for health does all in his power to protect the rights of UK consumers by ensuring that such European legislation does not unnecessarily and unacceptably restrict the availability of natural health products.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

NHS FUNDING FOR EAST LONDON

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Brian Sedgemore: I am delighted to participate in this debate on behalf of the citizens of east London. I have recently had extensive discussions with the primary care trusts of Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Newham, the major local hospitals, including the Homerton, Barts and the London, the East London and the City mental health NHS trust and the north-east London health authority. Put boldly, we all agree that the way in which the NHS is funded in the United Kingdom is unjust and unfair, leading to unnecessary pain and suffering and even early deaths in east London.
	For too many local people, life really is nasty, brutish and short—thanks, in large part, to an outdated and antiquated funding formula. The formula has to change, not at some distant time over the horizon but within the next few weeks, before the forthcoming three-year settlement; our people will settle for no less. Those who think otherwise must think again unless they wish to see blood on the House of Commons carpets.
	The NHS in east London has suffered from years of chronic underfunding. Despite the Chancellor's announcement in March of major sustained growth in NHS funding, east London remains one of the most under-resourced health communities in England. Over the past three years, the former East London and the City health authority has been below its target share of resources. Since April 2000 alone, it has missed out on more than #90 million of funding—a staggering figure.
	In the face of persistent inequities in funding and mounting demand, this divide must be closed now. East London is currently #26 million behind where it should be in funding terms, and there is absolutely no justification for that. Unless urgently tackled, the gap between the best and the worst-funded health systems will continue to grow, resulting in even greater inequalities.
	The case for east London is simple but powerful. A sound, equitable and transparent system for the allocation of funding is essential, particularly now, as we move into a new era of three-year revenue allocations direct to primary care trusts. The new formula must recognise that east London is an area of exceptional ethnic and cultural diversity with some of the worst social and economic deprivation in the country. We need to get the formula right; the cost of providing existing health services rises year on year as new treatments become available and the number of the heaviest users of these services—the very young and older people—increases.
	Serious flaws in the current method of funding exist in eight key areas where improvements must be made. They relate to population projections, demography, general practice work load, diversity of the population, refugee health, forensic psychiatry, staff market factors and child and maternal health. I will touch tonight on just three of those factors—population projections, general practice work load and child and maternal health.
	On population projections, a major concern is that over time the census-derived estimates issued by the Government have become increasingly unreliable. For example, in April 2001, 779,915 patients were registered with GPs in east London and the City, compared with the mid-year estimate of relevant population by the Office for National Statistics of 666,725—a variance of 17 per cent., and the fourth highest in the country. The average variation for England overall is just 4 per cent. East London's population is growing rapidly and has a much larger proportion of young adults than the rest of England. That growth has been most marked among five to 14-year-olds, 15 to 24-year-olds and 25 to 44-year-olds—the least funded groups. At least 142,000 homes are planned for the area in the next 10 years, so improvements to the quality and quantity of health services are essential to cope with the resultant demands.
	As for general practice work loads, a feature of east London's practice not adequately reflected in the national resource allocation formula is the high turnover of patients. Applying recent research findings to east London, we see that patient turnover generates an additional 54,000 consultations for GPs and 28,000 consultations with nurses a year. The existing formula simply does not recognise that. Fair shares for non-discretionary expenditure should reflect the work load pressures faced by primary care, and would include recognition that patient turnover is a major determinant of work load. Moreover, 25 per cent. of GPs in east London are due to retire within five years. There are eight to 12 annual GP consultations in east London per patient, compared with a national average of five. Again, the existing formula does not recognise the enormous burden that that places on heroic local GPs.
	As for child and maternal health, in addition to having some of the highest infant mortality rates in the country, east London has the highest rates of teenage pregnancy. It also has high numbers of children with low birth weight, a result of premature delivery and complications during pregnancy such as gestational diabetes and hypertension. Meanwhile, maternity services in east London are operating with 50 per cent. staff vacancy rates, and their models of care need substantial updating. The existing formula does not recognise that. Poverty can damage children's esteem, affecting their future mental health and life chances. Prevalence of psychiatric disorder in children in inner London is 13 per cent., compared with 6.8 per cent. nationally. Again, the existing formula does not recognise that.
	Perinatal and infant mortality rates are higher in east London than in the rest of the country. Stillbirths and deaths within the first seven days—perinatal mortality—are over a third higher than nationally. Infant mortality—deaths within the first year—is over a fifth higher. In simple terms, a baby born in Hackney is at more than double the risk of dying in the first year of life than a baby born in Bexley. A baby boy born in Newham is likely to die nearly six years earlier than a baby boy born in Westminster. That is appalling. How can the Minister justify a system that is killing us in the east end so early? What have the citizens of east London done to Ministers and civil servants at the Department of Health to warrant such early graves? The situation cannot continue.
	East London also has a high fertility rate. The 2001 census showed that there were more under-one-year-olds than in any other part of the country. Newham had the highest proportion of children aged under 16 in the country. The area is increasingly densely populated; Hackney, for example, has the fourth highest population density in the country. The formula must begin to recognise that.

Oona King: My hon. Friend referred to mobility and patient turnover. In my constituency, some GP lists change by more than 20 per cent. every year, and that must be recognised in the formula. Will my hon. Friend ask the Minister whether any suggested change in the formula can first be tested in the east London area so that we can avoid an even greater widening of the health inequalities that he described?

Brian Sedgemore: I am grateful for that intervention. I mentioned an overall figure for east London of 17 per cent., but my hon. Friend has informed us that the figure for Tower Hamlets is 20 per cent. I accept that her figure is correct. That means that there is an incredible increase in the number of GP and nurse consultations. I should prefer the problem to be dealt with, but if there is to be an experiment, I agree with my hon. Friend that it should be carried out in east London.
	I do not want only to whinge in this debate. East London has demonstrated what can be achieved despite the challenging financial straits it faces. The area has a proven track record in delivering first-class services. Examples of new services in recent years include one-stop cardiology; community diabetology; chronic disease management; Newham language shop telephone interpreting services; stop smoking programmes and the Nile centre for Afro-Caribbeans with serious mental illness.
	The additional resources provided by the changes that we want would provide the following key developments for east London. They would address serious recruitment and retention issues, especially in primary care; improve the quality of, and access to, primary care; extend the disintegrating population screening and immunisation programmes; integrate hospital and community mental health services, while reducing pressure on acute services; provide better new-entrant screening for refugees and asylum seekers—which we should have been discussing more thoroughly yesterday than some of the subjects that were raised—with better support and training for local services; improve screening, foot care and vascular services for diabetics; and work with community groups to expand their work to meet the needs of all minority ethnic groups in east London, including better advocacy and translation.
	The message is simple: give east London the funding to catch up and to bridge the existing health inequality divide and we will deliver the first-rate services that our citizens deserve.
	11.13 pm

Jacqui Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) on securing this debate on national health service funding for east London.
	I have listened to and appreciated my hon. Friend's comments, despite the threatening tone in which some of them were expressed. I am sure that represents the passion that he and other hon. Friends in the Chamber who represent east London constituencies bring to the debate.
	I take this opportunity to acknowledge east London's good record in delivering high quality services and pay tribute to all the staff who are dedicated to that endeavour. I also acknowledge the document on funding the XCase for East London" cited by my hon. Friend, which was compiled by NHS organisations in east London. I, too, agree that this is a helpful paper and hope to talk about it in more detail a little later.
	I think we would all accept that different parts of the country and different localities have different health needs. The national resource allocation formula that we use at present to determine fair shares for health authorities and primary care trusts already goes some way towards recognising that. The formula takes account of the age structure of the local population. Patterns of morbidity, or levels of sickness, vary by age group. The very young and the elderly, whose populations are not evenly distributed around the country, make more use of health services than the rest of the population.

Oona King: Does my hon. Friend recognise that a further change gave greater weighting to the elderly, which meant that east London lost out as, unfortunately, a lot of our older people have moved away or passed away?

Jacqui Smith: I will return to that important issue and the question of infant deaths, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, a little later, if my hon. Friend will allow me. We do recognise that although the existing formula already takes into consideration the variation in the cost of providing health services across different parts of the country and health needs, it has been criticised—passionately, this evening—for failing to get health resources to the areas of greatest health need. East London—where there are high levels of deprivation and where the financial cost of delivering patient services is also high—is a case in point. That is why we have set up a wide-ranging review of the allocation formula. The NHS plan stated that
	Xby 2003, following the review of the existing weighted capitation formula used to distribute NHS funding, reducing inequalities will be a key criterion for allocating NHS resources to different parts of the country".
	The review of the formula has been carried out under the auspices of the advisory committee on resource allocation. ACRA is an expert body, and its academic members include Professor Sir Brian Jarman, emeritus professor of general practice at the Imperial college of medicine, Professor Glennerster, professor of social policy at the London school of economics, and other individuals with a wide range of relevant experience and expertise from within and outside the NHS.
	The researchers working on the new formula were asked specifically to look at potentially new and better measures of deprivation. We are currently considering ACRA's recommendations and I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch that we intend to introduce the new formula for the next round of NHS allocations. These allocations will be announced later this year and will cover the three years 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2005–06 and will go directly to locally run primary care trusts. It is worth noting that moving to direct allocations to primary care trusts will enable resources to be much more closely matched to the needs of local people.
	The review has already enabled us to make progress towards fairer resource allocation in areas that are particularly challenging to east London. In the 2001–02 allocations, we introduced a health inequalities adjustment. This targeted resources at the most deprived areas. We provided #130 million for this in 2001–02 and increased it by 14 per cent. to #148 million in 2002–03. East London and City health authority received over #6 million of this for 2002–03 and just over #3 million in 2001–02.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) referred to infant deaths. For 2002–03, the rates of years of life lost—which form the basis of the health inequalities adjustment—were extended to include infant deaths under one year from all causes. That followed the announcement of an additional target for tackling health inequalities based on infant mortality. I recognise the point raised about the particular needs in those communities where, for a range of reasons, infant mortality is likely to be high, as well as the need to ensure that the way in which we distribute resources recognises that.
	In the same year, we also introduced a cost of living supplement that targeted resources at locations where NHS employers faced the most pressing recruitment and retention issues. East London received more than #4.9 million for that in 2002–03 and more than #3.6 million in 2001–02. We also announced in the NHS plan that there would be a new way of distributing resources to address inequities in primary care services. I recognise the concerns expressed by my hon. Friends this evening about the particular challenges for primary care, and especially for GPs, in the areas that they represent. They are right, of course, that the ability to recruit, retain and fund those crucial activities in primary care are important for their constituents, which we have borne in mind in our new unified allocations. We shall continue to consider that as we move forward with the formula.

Diane Abbott: I support everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) said. He and other colleagues who have spoken raised a specific point about population mobility and how it bears down on resources and on GPs. Is there any possibility in the future of the formula taking into account population mobility? As we know, there are excellent services in the area—I had my baby in Homerton hospital, and I could not have had better care anywhere. As the Minister will also know, however, east London saw a swathe of hospital closures in the 1980s and 1990s: the Mothers hospital, the old Hackney hospital, St. Leonard's, and the Queen Elizabeth II hospital. We were promised increased resources for primary care, and we are still waiting to see them.

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the particular pressures that come from population disruption as much as from population numbers. I believe that we already recognise, in the way in which we distribute primary care resources, some elements of that disruption, but she makes a very strong case. That is something that we need to consider in the way in which we allocate resources, and in the way in which we target some of the additional support that I shall talk about in a moment.
	In relation to primary care in particular, it is important to note that Department approval has been given for two first-wave local improvement finance trust schemes, one of which is in east London and the City. The East London and City LIFT Project will bring #30 million of new investment into primary care buildings in the first wave. Most people's experience of the NHS is in primary care environments and that much-needed investment will make an important difference to the east London community.
	I said earlier that I would talk about the XCase for East London" paper, and I know that east London NHS organisations have completed a helpful analysis of the pressures facing those wanting to provide high-quality patient care, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has referred. All NHS services throughout the country have been under pressure to deal with the demands placed on them day to day, and the historic increases in NHS spending announced recently should help the whole of the NHS in that respect. That, and the reforms to the NHS, in which decisions about patient care are devolved to local decision makers, means that the NHS in London should in future be in a better position to deal with the pressures under which it currently works. That takes time, but we recognise the need—and the pressure from hon. Members—to do that as quickly as possible.
	The priorities and planning framework, which was recently distributed by the Department, sets out what we believe are the national priorities for the NHS and social care provision. That, combined with the details of the financial allocations that will be made available, will ensure that the NHS in east London will know what is expected of it, and what levels of resource distributed under a reviewed formula it will have to deliver high-quality patient care. Analysis calls for a review of how the relative needs of different populations are to be assessed and taken into account in national resource allocation decisions. The issues raised are complex, but deprived populations undoubtedly place additional demands on services due to their increased levels of need. Many of the factors that hon. Friends highlighted are known to increase the need for services. The weighted capitation formula attempts to capture many of those for hospital and community health services. As I said, the formula review will further refine consideration of those pressures.
	I want to make clear the levels of funding that have been going into east London over the past few years. The XCase for East London" paper highlights only some of those. East London and the City health authority received more than #225 million extra in revenue allocations in the past five years. It also received an increase in 2001–02 of #68 million. For 2002–03, it received an allocation of #703 million, which represents a real terms increase of nearly 11 per cent. above the average throughout the country. In addition, of the #2.5 billion being invested in major capital to redevelop and build brand new hospitals across London, a community facility in Newham costing #3 million was completed in April 2002 and is now open, and a #14 million mental health unit in Newham was opened this July.
	I recognise that there is a particular demand on mental health services in my hon. Friend's area. Barts and the London trust is considering proposals from two private sector bidders for a #620 million development programme. That will include the creation of a world-class cancer and cardiac centre at Barts and the building of a new teaching hospital at Whitechapel. The decision to build on both sites reversed the previous Government's decision to close Barts, the country's oldest hospital, altogether.
	We have been working hard on addressing some of the issues highlighted in east London and by my hon. Friends. For example, we have funded a number of personal medical service pilots that focus on refugee and asylum-seeking communities. Those pilots address access to primary care services for those communities, as well as encouraging opportunities for health professionals from those communities to gain employment in the NHS locally. Private medical services have an important role to play in GP recruitment in areas such as east London because they provide a different way in which GPs can operate within the health service.
	East London's approach to delivering language services is among some of the best practice in London. We are building on that by disseminating good practice and initiating discussion across the city on the London language plan. Regional colleagues in London are working with partners such as the King's Fund to encourage more local people to train as community bilingual advocates, which my hon. Friend also highlighted.
	Work in east London highlights the pressure being put on local staff. That is why we recently set out the work force challenge facing the capital over the next few years to modernise services and respond to the growing population in London. We are working with a range of organisations in east London to see how we can recruit more people locally, thereby meeting our work force needs and acting as a spur to local regeneration and to tackling poverty and unemployment. In that way, we hope to alleviate the need for health care, which my hon. Friend rightly linked to poverty and deprivation, and to increase the capacity of the NHS to respond.
	The Government recognise that poverty and deprivation bring not only excess morbidity and mortality but extra costs to local health services. I assure my hon. Friends that we will continue to provide extra health resources in areas of greatest health need to recognise, as my hon. Friend does, the ambitions of local health services in east London to provide the best service possible for constituents.
	Sitting suspended, pursuant to order [29 October].
	On resuming—
	Question agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.